Opinion
No. 21-1152
04-20-2021
In re: TERRANCE L. JAMES-BEY, Petitioner.
Terrance L. James-Bey, Petitioner Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:13-cv-00386-FDW) Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrance L. James-Bey, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Terrance L. James-Bey petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order vacating his state sentence. We conclude that he is not entitled to mandamus relief.
"[M]andamus is a drastic remedy that must be reserved for extraordinary situations." In re Murphy-Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). "Courts provide mandamus relief only when (1) petitioner 'ha[s] no other adequate means to attain the relief [he] desires'; (2) petitioner has shown a 'clear and indisputable' right to the requested relief; and (3) the court deems the writ 'appropriate under the circumstances.'" Id. (quoting Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004)); see also In re Moore, 955 F.3d 384, 388 (4th Cir. 2020).
The writ of mandamus is not a substitute for appeal after final judgment. Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 97 (1967); 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 Cty., 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). This court also lacks jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus petition. Dragenice v. Ridge, 389 F.3d 92, 100 (4th Cir. 2004).
To the extent that James-Bey seeks relief against state officials, the relief sought is not available by way of mandamus. To the extent that he seeks relief in the district court, he has not shown that he is entitled to such relief. Accordingly, we deny the pending motion and the petition 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.
PETITION DENIED