In re: David L. Smith

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1255

In re: DAVID L. SMITH,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(5:19-hc-02207-FL)

Submitted: May 19, 2020 Decided: May 22, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:

David Lee Smith petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order from this court
directing the district court to construe his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition as “a request
for the U.S. Supreme [C]ourt to immediately issue an independent order, causing [the
district court] to cause Wake County Superior Court Judge Paul C. Ridgeway to issue an
extraordinary writ, causing the Pender Correctional Department of Transportation to
produce him in Wake County Superior Court.” Smith also requests that this court direct
the district court to reverse its denials of his motions and order that Judge Ridgeway set his
appeal bond and release him pending a bond hearing. In his motion to amend the
mandamus petition, Smith seeks an order from this court directing the district court to
co mmute his state prison sentence 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 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).

3

The relief sought by Smith is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly,
although we grant Smith’s motion requesting that his in forma pauperis application be
submitted to this court, grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and grant Smith’s motion
to amend, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus as amended. 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