UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1149
In Re: DAVID CONLEY,
Petitioner.
No. 14-1249
In Re: DAVID CONLEY,
Petitioner.
No. 14-1374
In Re: DAVID CONLEY,
Petitioner.
No. 14-1449
In Re: DAVID CONLEY,
Petitioner.
On Petitions for Writs of Mandamus.
(5:13-ct-03251-F)
Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: July 1, 2014
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Conley, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
David Conley petitions for writs of mandamus seeking
orders compelling the Department of Justice to investigate his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) claims, requiring a state official to
rehear his claims of innocence, and directing the district court
to serve his complaint, require defendants to file an answer,
and find that his complaint states a claim. We conclude that
Conley 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). 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).
The relief sought by Conley is not available by way of
mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petitions for writs of
mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITIONS DENIED
4