In re: David Smith ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                       UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 18-1485
    In re: DAVID LEE SMITH,
    Petitioner.
    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:17-ct-03063-D)
    Submitted: August 16, 2018                                        Decided: August 20, 2018
    Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    David Lee Smith, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    David Lee Smith petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order vacating the
    district court’s Sept. 14, 2017, order, directing the district court to reverse Smith’s North
    Carolina convictions, and directing the state custodian to release him. We conclude that
    Smith 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). Mandamus may not be used as a
    substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 
    503 F.3d 351
    , 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
    Further, 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), 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 Smith 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 warn Smith, however, that future frivolous submissions may result in the
    imposition of monetary sanctions. 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