Opinion
No. 20-1428
07-01-2020
In re: DAVID LEE SMITH, Petitioner.
David Lee Smith, Petitioner Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:18-ct-03209-D) Before KEENAN, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, 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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 from this Court vacating its May 15, 2019 order entered in appeal No. 19-1467. In addition, Smith asks this Court to direct the district court to order a state court judge to schedule a bond hearing, require that Smith be transported to and appear at the bond hearing, and direct that Smith be released on his written promise to appear. We conclude that Smith 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. Court, 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. Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795.
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 Court of Mecklenburg Cty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), and does not have jurisdiction to review final state court orders, D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983).
The relief sought by Smith is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a 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