IN RE: John Edward BUTLER (2021)

John Edward Butler petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing a state court to act on his discovery motion. We conclude that Butler 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, 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 Ct. of Mecklenburg Cnty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969).

The relief sought by Butler is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny Butler's request for counsel and 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

PER CURIAM:

Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.