In re: Kent Bell, No. 23-2106 (4th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-2106 In re: KENT BELL, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Submitted: December 14, 2023 Decided: December 18, 2023 Before GREGORY and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kent Bell, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kent Bell petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order allowing him to challenge his 2013 Maryland conviction. We conclude that Bell 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). 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 Bell is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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.
