In re: William Davis, Jr., No. 20-1500 (4th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1500 In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:14-cr-00240-BR-1) Submitted: September 24, 2020 Decided: September 28, 2020 Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Scott Davis, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Scott Davis, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order to compel the production of documents and to compel the district court clerk to docket a motion. We conclude that Davis 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). And 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). The relief sought by Davis is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We deny Davis’ motions for a transcript at government expense and to compel. 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 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.