UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1500
In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Petitioner.
No. 21-1502
In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Petitioner.
No. 21-1503
In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Petitioner.
No. 21-1530
In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Petitioner.
No. 21-1534
In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Petitioner.
No. 21-1547
In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Petitioner.
No. 21-1618
In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Petitioner.
No. 21-1796
In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Petitioner.
2
No. 21-1798
In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Petitioner.
No. 21-1799
In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Petitioner.
No. 21-1808
In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Petitioner.
No. 21-1813
In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Petitioner.
3
No. 21-1816
In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Petitioner.
No. 21-1817
In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Petitioner.
On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus. (5:14-cr-00240-BR-1)
Submitted: September 14, 2021 Decided: September 17, 2021
Before THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Scott Davis, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
4
PER CURIAM:
William Scott Davis, Jr., has filed 14 petitions for a writ of mandamus, raising a
litany of claims concerning his prior federal and state convictions and a prefiling injunction
entered by this court that applies to Davis’ civil cases. We conclude that Davis is not
entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary
circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown,
LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when
the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to
attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal
quotation marks omitted). 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 Ct. of
Mecklenburg Cnty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), and does not have jurisdiction to
review final state court orders, D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983).
The relief sought by Davis is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we
deny the petitions for writ of mandamus. We 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.
PETITIONS DENIED
5