In re: William Davis, Jr.

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1500

In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,

Petitioner.

No. 21-1502

No. 21-1503

No. 21-1530

Petitioner. No. 21-1534

No. 21-1547

No. 21-1618

No. 21-1796

2 No. 21-1798

No. 21-1799

No. 21-1808

No. 21-1813

3 No. 21-1816

No. 21-1817

On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus. (5:14-cr-00240-BR-1)

Submitted: September 14, 2021 Decided: September 17, 2021

Before THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Scott Davis, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

4 PER CURIAM:

William Scott Davis, Jr., has filed 14 petitions for a writ of mandamus, raising a

litany of claims concerning his prior federal and state convictions and a prefiling injunction

entered by this court that applies to Davis’ civil cases. 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 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). 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 Davis is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we

deny the petitions 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.

PETITIONS DENIED