In Re: David Smith, No. 20-2089 (4th Cir. 2020)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-2089 In re: DAVID LEE SMITH, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:20-ct-03301-M) Submitted: December 2, 2020 Decided: December 4, 2020 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DIAZ, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 directing the district court to 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. 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. 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 Ct. of Mecklenburg Cnty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969) (per curiam), 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 Smith is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. We deny Smith’s motion for 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 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.