794 Fed.Appx. 335 (4th Cir. 2020), 19-1966, In re Morgan

Docket Nº:19-1966
Citation:794 Fed.Appx. 335
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM:
Party Name:IN RE: Keven A. MORGAN, Petitioner.
Attorney:Keven A. Morgan, Petitioner Pro Se.
Judge Panel:Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Case Date:February 24, 2020
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Page 335

794 Fed.Appx. 335 (4th Cir. 2020)

IN RE: Keven A. MORGAN, Petitioner.

No. 19-1966

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

February 24, 2020

Submitted: February 20, 2020

UNPUBLISHED

Editorial Note:

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:19-hc-02153-M)

Keven A. Morgan, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Keven A. Morgan petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order dismissing his North Carolina criminal charges, directing the North Carolina Department of Public Safety to immediately release him, and directing the district court to rule in his favor on his pending 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition. We conclude that Morgan 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. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380, 124 S.Ct. 2576, 159 L.Ed.2d 459 (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. Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795. 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), and does not have jurisdiction to review final state court orders, D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). The relief sought by Morgan 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

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP