UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-2323
In Re: DAVID LEE SMITH,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(5:15-hc-02128-D)
Submitted: February 27, 2017 Decided: March 1, 2017
Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Lee Smith, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Lee Smith petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an
order prohibiting the district court from dismissing Smith’s
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion filed in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2012) proceeding and directing the court to reduce Smith’s
state sentence. Smith also seeks an order directing a state
corrections official to release him. We conclude that Smith 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).
Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re
Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
Further, this court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus
relief against state officials, Gurley v. Superior Court of
Mecklenburg Cty., 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).
2
The relief sought by Smith is not available by way of
mandamus. Accordingly, we deny all pending petitions and
motions, including the mandamus petition and supplemental
petition and Smith’s motions for release, release pending
appeal, and for an en banc determination. 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.
PETITION DENIED
3