In re: Kevin Michael Jones

UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

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 of 2 --