Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: David Smith V., 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views3 pages
    David Smith, a North Carolina inmate, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to order the state court to hold an evidentiary hearing on his criminal convictions or set them aside. The Fourth Circuit denied the petition, finding that mandamus relief is only available in extraordinary circumstances when the petitioner has a clear right to relief. The court noted that the district court had recently dismissed Smith's habeas petition as successive and denied his motions, rendering his mandamus request moot. The Fourth Circuit concluded that the relief Smith sought was not available through mandamus and denied his petition.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-10-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-1763

    Original Title

    In Re: David Smith v., 4th Cir. (2015)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    David Smith, a North Carolina inmate, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to order the state court to hold an evidentiary hearing on his criminal convictions or set them aside. The Fourth Circuit denied the petition, finding that mandamus relief is only available in extraordinary circumstances when the petitioner has a clear right to relief. The court noted that the district court had recently dismissed Smith's habeas petition as successive and denied his motions, rendering his mandamus request moot. The Fourth Circuit concluded that the relief Smith sought was not available through mandamus and denied his petition.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views3 pages

    In Re: David Smith V., 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    David Smith, a North Carolina inmate, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to order the state court to hold an evidentiary hearing on his criminal convictions or set them aside. The Fourth Circuit denied the petition, finding that mandamus relief is only available in extraordinary circumstances when the petitioner has a clear right to relief. The court noted that the district court had recently dismissed Smith's habeas petition as successive and denied his motions, rendering his mandamus request moot. The Fourth Circuit concluded that the relief Smith sought was not available through mandamus and denied his petition.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 15-1763

    In re:

    DAVID LEE SMITH,


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.


    (No. 5:15-hc-02128-D)

    Submitted:

    October 20, 2015

    Decided:

    October 22, 2015

    Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    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 Smith, a North Carolina inmate, petitions for a writ
    of mandamus directing the district court to direct the state
    court to either hold an evidentiary hearing on the merits of his
    challenges

    to

    convictions.

    his

    criminal

    judgment

    or

    set

    aside

    his

    He also seeks an order from this court directing

    the district court to rule on his motions for immediate release


    and for a preliminary injunction.

    The district court recently

    dismissed Smiths 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2012) petition as successive


    and denied the motions.

    We conclude that Smith is not entitled

    to mandamus relief.
    Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and 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,
    516-17 (4th Cir. 2003).

    Further, mandamus relief is available

    only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought.
    In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.
    1988).
    Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal.

    In re

    Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
    addition,

    the

    district

    court

    has

    ruled

    on

    the

    motions

    In

    Smith

    identified in his mandamus petition, rendering the request moot.


    The relief sought by Smith is not available by way of mandamus.
    Accordingly,

    although

    we

    grant
    2

    leave

    to

    proceed

    in

    forma

    pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus, amended


    petition, and supplemental petitions.

    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

    You might also like