Jay Brooks v. State of North Carolina, No. 13-7745 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7745 JAY MIKAL BROOKS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; RUSSELL W. DUKE, JR., Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:13-hc-02112-FL) Submitted: January 21, 2014 Decided: January 24, 2014 Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jay Mikal Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jay Mikal Brooks appeals the district court s order denying his self-styled motion for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the North Carolina courts to release him. Brooks alleged that North Carolina lacked jurisdiction over him because he is a flesh and blood providing Moorish notice to American. Brooks, the It appears district that, court without may have construed his motion as an initial petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012), and dismissed it without prejudice. Despite this possible error, see Castro v. United U.S. States, 540 375, 383 (2003), we may affirm the district court s denial of relief on any basis that is apparent in the record. See MM ex rel. DM v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cnty., 303 F.3d 523, 536 (4th Cir. 2002). We agree with the district court that Brooks claim is patently frivolous. compel state Mecklenburg Federal courts do not have jurisdiction to officials Cnty., 411 to act, F.2d Gurley 586, 587 v. (4th Superior Cir. Court 1969), of and mandamus relief is a drastic remedy that should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 51617 (4th Cir. 2003). Because Brooks did not demonstrate in the district court a clear right to the relief sought, see In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988), 2 we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm the district court s denial of relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

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.