UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6275
In Re: IRVING D. CHAPPELL,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Submitted: April 17, 2003 Decided: April 24, 2003
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Irving D. Chappell, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Irving D. Chappell petitions for a writ of mandamus. He seeks
an order to compel a state superior court judge to direct his
appellate attorney to produce documents.
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 Chappell 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 the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2