UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6701
In Re: REGINALD REX FRAZIER, SR.,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-02-29-4)
Submitted: June 24, 2003 Decided: July 28, 2003
Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reginald Rex Frazier, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Reginald Frazier, disbarred as an attorney in 1989, has
recently been convicted in North Carolina state court of several
counts stemming from his unauthorized practice of law. He
petitions this court for a writ of mandamus, stay or injunction,
and habeas corpus relief, alleging that he has been deprived of
liberty and property and is being held in unlawful custody. He
names several North Carolina officials as Respondents.
Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a
clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan
Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). 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), or to review state court orders, see District of Columbia
Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). Thus, the
relief sought by Frazier is not available by way of mandamus.
Frazier also requests habeas corpus relief. To the extent
that he seeks to file an original habeas petition with a circuit
judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), we dismiss the petition.
2
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 22(a), application for habeas relief
must be made to the appropriate district court, here, the Eastern
District of North Carolina. We note that Frazier must first exhaust
his state remedies. § 2254(b)(1). In violation of Rule 2, Rules
Governing § 2254 Cases, Frazier has not filed an actual petition
for habeas relief, but merely requested such relief in his petition
for mandamus. In view of that fact, and because it seems unlikely
that Frazier has fully exhausted state remedies from a conviction
that is only three months old, we decline to transfer the habeas
request to the district court as such a transfer would not serve
the interests of justice.
Accordingly, we deny Frazier’s motion for stay or injunction
of his sentence and his motion to incorporate prior cases, and deny
his petition for mandamus relief. To the extent that Frazier seeks
habeas corpus relief from this court, we dismiss the petition
without prejudice to his right to file such a petition in the
district court after exhausting state remedies. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3