Court Opinion

ID: 9411524
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-26 21:01:23.106807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:07.465091
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1504      Doc: 11         Filed: 07/25/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1504

        In re: KENT BELL,

                             Petitioner.

        On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of
        Maryland, at Baltimore. (1:21-cv-00107-GLR)

        Submitted: July 20, 2023                                          Decided: July 25, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, 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        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-1504      Doc: 11         Filed: 07/25/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Kent Bell petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking relief from several alleged errors

        that occurred in his state criminal proceeding. 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), and does not have jurisdiction to review final state court orders, D.C. Ct. of

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

               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