Opinion
21-1500 21-1502 21-1503 21-1530 21-1534 21-1547 21-1618 21-1796 21-1798 21-1799 21-1808 21-1813 21-1816 21-1817
09-17-2021
In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., Petitioner. In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., Petitioner. In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., Petitioner. In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., Petitioner. In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., Petitioner. In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., Petitioner. In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., Petitioner. In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., Petitioner. In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., Petitioner. In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., Petitioner. In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., Petitioner. In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., Petitioner. In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., Petitioner. In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., Petitioner.
William Scott Davis, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: September 14, 2021
On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus. (5:14-cr-00240-BR-1)
William Scott Davis, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Before THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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.