In re: Jasmine Howard

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1138 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/01/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1138 In re: JASMINE HOWARD, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Submitted: March 27, 2025 Decided: April 1, 2025 Before THACKER and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jasmine Howard, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1138 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/01/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Jasmine Howard petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from this court directing the Superior Court for Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, to rule on an “Emergency Motion to Dismiss” the criminal charges against her. We conclude that Howard 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 (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 and “has no other adequate means to attain the relief [she] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). Because we lack jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials, see Gurley v. Superior Ct. of Mecklenburg Cnty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), the relief sought by Howard is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, 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