Court Opinion

ID: 4208329
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-10-02 19:01:07.048663+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:39.349573
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 17-1610

In re: DAVID LEE SMITH,

             Petitioner.

                           On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
                                (No. 5:17-ct-03087-D)

Submitted: September 28, 2017                                     Decided: October 2, 2017

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Lee Smith, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

      David Lee Smith petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the

district court to investigate an alleged conspiracy between two district court judges and

Lexis Publishing. Smith also seeks an order reducing his state sentence to time served.

We conclude that Smith is not entitled to mandamus relief.

      Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary

circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v.

Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). 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). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for

appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Further, this

court does not have jurisdiction to review final state court orders, Dist. of Columbia

Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983).

      The relief sought by Smith is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly,

although we grant leave to proceed in forma 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 this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                                    PETITION DENIED

                                           2