In re: Clarence Jenkins, Jr.
In re: Clarence Jenkins, Jr.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-1106
In re: CLARENCE B. JENKINS, JR.,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:16-cv-03255-TLW)
Submitted: March 14, 2019 Decided: March 19, 2019
Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clarence B. Jenkins, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Clarence B. Jenkins, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order
directing the state court that recently dismissed his civil complaint to take a variety of
actions. We conclude that Jenkins 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 Ass’n,
860 F.2d 135, 138(4th Cir. 1988). This court does not have jurisdiction to
grant mandamus relief against state officials. Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg
Cty.,
411 F.2d 586, 587(4th Cir. 1969).
The relief sought by Jenkins is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly,
although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished