Case Name: In re: Randy COOPER, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-11-02
Citations: 349 F. App'x 815
Docket Number: No. 09-1492
Parties: In re: Randy COOPER, Petitioner.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 349
Pages: 815–816

Head Matter:
In re: Randy COOPER, Petitioner.
No. 09-1492.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 21, 2009.
Decided: Nov. 2, 2009.
Randy Cooper, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Randy Cooper petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing state correctional officials to protect him from assaults and harassment and obey the law We conclude that Cooper is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir.2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988). This court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials. Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir.1969).
The relief sought by Cooper is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.