eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 2021-06

In re: Somchai Noonsab ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1269
In re: SOMCHAI NOONSAB,
Petitioner.
On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus. (1:20-cv-00401-MR)
Submitted: June 24, 2021                                          Decided: June 28, 2021
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Somchai Noonsab, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
North Carolina prisoner Somchai Noonsab petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking
various forms of relief, including requesting that this court recognize that certain North
Carolina legislation is unconstitutional, suggesting that a state court judge has committed
ethical violations, and asking that his freedom be restored with monetary relief. We
conclude that Noonsab 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). Importantly, 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).
None of the forms of relief that Noonsab seeks are available by way of mandamus
and, further, he fails to allege extraordinary circumstances or a clear and indisputable right
to the relief sought. Accordingly, we deny the petitions for writ of mandamus. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITIONS DENIED
3