In Re: Larry Mitchell v. , 673 F. App'x 332 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 16-1959
    In re:   LARRY RAY MITCHELL,
    Petitioner.
    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
    (No. 5:16-ct-03057-D)
    Submitted:   January 17, 2017                Decided:   January 19, 2017
    Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Larry Ray Mitchell, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Larry Ray Mitchell petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking
    an order for his immediate release.               We conclude that Mitchell
    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 Cnty., 
    411 F.2d 586
    , 587 (4th Cir. 1969), and 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 Mitchell 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
    2
    before   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    PETITION DENIED
    3