Filed: Dec. 12, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1788 In Re: LEO LIONEL PAYNE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: August 18, 2008 Decided: December 12, 2008 Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS,* Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leo Lionel Payne, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. * Senior Judge Wilkins was a member of the original panel but retire
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1788 In Re: LEO LIONEL PAYNE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: August 18, 2008 Decided: December 12, 2008 Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS,* Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leo Lionel Payne, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. * Senior Judge Wilkins was a member of the original panel but retired..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1788
In Re: LEO LIONEL PAYNE,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Submitted: August 18, 2008 Decided: December 12, 2008
Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS,* Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leo Lionel Payne, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*
Senior Judge Wilkins was a member of the original panel but
retired prior to the decision and did not participate in it. This
opinion is thus filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28
U.S.C. ยง 46(d).
PER CURIAM:
Leo Payne petitions this court for a writ of mandamus.
He seeks relief from his state court conviction for grand larceny-
auto. Payne also seeks an order directing the state court judge
who presided over his criminal proceeding to take certain actions.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used only in
extraordinary situations. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426
U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re: Beard,
811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.
1987). The party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden
of showing that he has no other adequate means to obtain the relief
he desires and that his entitlement to such relief is clear and
indisputable. Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc.,
449 U.S. 33, 35
(1980). This court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus
relief against state officials, Gurley v. Superior Court of
Mecklenburg County,
411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), or to review
state court orders, see District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.
Feldman,
460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983).
The relief Payne seeks 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 the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2
