Court Opinion

ID: 9911440
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-19 21:00:53.954625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:30.584203
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2106      Doc: 9          Filed: 12/18/2023   Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-2106

        In re: KENT BELL,

                             Petitioner.

        On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of
        Maryland, at Baltimore.

        Submitted: December 14, 2023                                Decided: December 18, 2023

        Before GREGORY and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kent Bell, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2106      Doc: 9        Filed: 12/18/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Kent Bell petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order allowing him to

        challenge his 2013 Maryland conviction.        We conclude that Bell is not entitled to

        mandamus relief.

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

        circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown,

        LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when

        the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to

        attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal

        quotation marks omitted). This court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief

        against state officials. Gurley v. Superior Ct. of Mecklenburg Cnty., 411 F.2d 586, 587

        (4th Cir. 1969).

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