USCA4 Appeal: 25-1131 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/07/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1131

In re: DAVID LEE SMITH, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. (5:24-ct-03192-M-RJ)

Submitted: July 17, 2025 Decided: August 7, 2025

Before QUATTLEBAUM, BENJAMIN, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Lee Smith, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1131 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/07/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM: David Lee Smith has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order from this court directing the district court to: construe his letter requesting a courtesy copy of the district court’s docket as an “emergency request to issue a recommendation” that a North Carolina state court judge reconsider his motion for appropriate relief; find that, if another state judge had known he would be compelled to serve his second prison sentence during the COVID-19 pandemic, the judge would have consolidated his sentences; and recommend that the first state judge order the consolidation of his prison sentences and order his custodian to release him from prison without conditions. Smith also moves to amend his petition, requesting in his amendment that this court instruct the district court to: find a state court judge would have granted his motion to consolidate his prison sentences; order the consolidation of those sentences; and release him from incarceration.

On December 10, 2020, this court enjoined Smith from filing “in any civil matter” any “original action, petition, or motion in this court unless this court has certified that the filing is not frivolous.” In re Smith, No. 19-1874 (4th Cir. Dec. 10, 2020) (unpublished order). On June 30, 2025, we ordered Smith to show compliance with this injunction order or other good cause for his case to proceed. Having reviewed Smith’s response to this order, we find his arguments unpersuasive and conclude that the petition and the amended petition are barred by the injunction order. We therefore grant Smith’s motion to amend and dismiss the mandamus petition as amended.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1131 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/07/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

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 DISMISSED