In re: Kent Bell

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJuly 25, 2023
Docket23-1504
StatusUnpublished

This text of In re: Kent Bell (In re: Kent Bell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re: Kent Bell, (4th Cir. 2023).

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1504 Doc: 11 Filed: 07/25/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1504

In re: KENT BELL,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. (1:21-cv-00107-GLR)

Submitted: July 20, 2023 Decided: July 25, 2023

Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kent Bell, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1504 Doc: 11 Filed: 07/25/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Kent Bell petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking relief from several alleged errors

that occurred in his state criminal proceeding. 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), 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 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman
460 U.S. 462 (Supreme Court, 1983)
In re: Murphy-Brown, LLC
907 F.3d 788 (Fourth Circuit, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In re: Kent Bell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kent-bell-ca4-2023.