UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1325
In re: JEFFREY A. PLEASANT, a/k/a Jeffrey A. Pleasants,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(3:00-cr-00071-REP-1)
Submitted: May 29, 2014 Decided: June 2, 2014
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey A. Pleasant, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey A. Pleasant petitions for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order compelling a state court to produce records of
certain proceedings and compelling the district court to vacate
his convictions and sentence. We conclude that Pleasant is not
entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States
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). This court does not have
jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials,
Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg Cnty., 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 Pleasant is not available by way
of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and grant Pleasant’s motion to amend his
petition, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We
2
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
3