UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7113
In Re: RICHARD CHEEKS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-3616-1)
Submitted: October 24, 2002 Decided: October 31, 2002
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard Cheeks, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Richard Cheeks petitions for a writ of mandamus. He seeks an
order preventing the state court from considering his state habeas
petition and preventing the state prosecutor from further
participation in his case.
Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a
clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan
Assn., 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a
drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary
circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S.
394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).
Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re
United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). This court
does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state
officials, see Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411
F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), and does not have jurisdiction to
review state court orders, see District of Columbia Court of
Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983).
The relief sought by Cheeks is not available by way of
mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3