In re: Kevin Jones v. n

USCA4 Appeal: 24-2194 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/24/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-2194 In re: KEVIN MICHAEL JONES, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. (1:23-cv-01033-PTG-JFA) Submitted: February 18, 2025 Decided: February 24, 2025 Before NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Michael Jones, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-2194 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/24/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Kevin Michael Jones petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking various orders from this court including, in most relevant part, orders (1) declaring a prior District of Columbia criminal judgment void; and (2) consolidating another case that is pending in this court with a case previously decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. We conclude that Jones 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 [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (cleaned up). Jones has not shown that he has a clear right to the relief sought and that he has no other adequate means to attain such relief. See id. Moreover, mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal, In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007), and this court does not have jurisdiction to review final state court orders, D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). Nor do we have the authority to consolidate a pending Fourth Circuit matter with a case previously decided by a sister circuit. 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