UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1413
In re: SUSAN NEAL MATOUSEK,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:18-cv-00448-RAJ-LRL; 2:18-cv-00501-RAJ-
LRL; 2:18-cv-00457-RAJ-LRL; 2:18-cv-00500-RAJ-LRL; 2:18-cv-00433-RAJ-LRL;
2:18-cv-00445-RAJ-LRL; 2:18-cv-00446-RAJ-LRL; 2:18-cv-00597-RAJ-LRL; 2:18-cv-
00595-RAJ-LRL; 2:18-cv-00596-RAJ-LRL; 2:18-cv-00620-RAJ-LRL; 2:18-cv-00609-
RAJ-LRL; 2:18-cv-00293-RAJ-LRL; 2:18-cv-00301-RAJ-LRL)
Submitted: June 7, 2021 Decided: June 23, 2021
Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Susan Neal Matousek, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Susan Neal Matousek has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and a supplement
to the petition, seeking an order directing that her district court cases be reheard by another
judge, that an investigation occur, that she be appointed counsel, and that police retaliation
cease. We conclude that Matousek 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 [she] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (internal quotation marks
and brackets omitted). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal, In re
Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007), and 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) (per curiam).
The relief sought by Matousek is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly,
we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus as supplemented. 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
2