In re: David Lee Smith

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1475

In re: DAVID LEE SMITH,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:15-hc-02128-D)

Submitted: May 18, 2020 Decided: August 28, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Lee Smith, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:

David Lee Smith petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order from this court
directing the district court to vacate its April 13, 2020, order issued in the habeas corpus
action below, construe his petition as an application for an emergency executive clemency
order, and order his custodian to release him from prison. 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 also 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) (per curiam), 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 deny Smith’s motion for emergency release
and 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