In re: Stephen Nivens, No. 22-1167 (4th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-1167 In re: STEPHEN NIVENS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (8:16-cv-02648-TDC) Submitted: April 27, 2022 Before WYNN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen Nivens, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Decided: May 4, 2022 PER CURIAM: Stephen Nivens, a Maryland inmate, petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order granting relief from his criminal judgment. We conclude that Nivens 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 and “has no other adequate means to attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). In addition, 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), 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 Nivens is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petitions for writ of mandamus. * We dispense with oral argument because the Nivens also enclosed a “petition for writ of habeas corpus,” which he purports to bring under a host of statutes, including 28 U.S.C. § 2244. Insofar as Nivens seeks prefiling authorization from this court to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, we conclude that he fails to make the requisite showing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). * 2 facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITIONS DENIED 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.
