Court Opinion

ID: 4266090
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-04-20 16:00:25.306428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:23.546935
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                        No. 18-1140

In re: MELINDA L. SCOTT,

                    Petitioner.

             On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:17-cv-00050-JPJ-PMS)

Submitted: April 17, 2018                                         Decided: April 20, 2018

Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Melinda L. Scott, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Melinda L. Scott petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the

district court and two Virginia state courts to permit her to proceed with an appeal in state

court without paying an appeal bond. We conclude that Scott 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). 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

Cty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969). In addition, mandamus may not be used as a

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

          The relief sought by Scott 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