In re: Stephen Nivens

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1167
In re: STEPHEN NIVENS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (8:16-cv-02648-TDC)
Submitted: April 27, 2022 Decided: May 4, 2022
Before WYNN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen Nivens, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Stephen Nivens, a Maryland inmate, petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an
order granting relief from his criminal judgment. We conclude that Nivens 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 (alteration and internal
quotation marks omitted). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re
Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). In addition, 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), and does not have jurisdiction to
review final state court orders, D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983).
The relief sought by Nivens is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we
deny the petitions for writ of mandamus.* We dispense with oral argument because the
* Nivens also enclosed a “petition for writ of habeas corpus,” which he purports to
bring under a host of statutes, including 28 U.S.C. § 2244. Insofar as Nivens seeks prefiling
authorization from this court to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, we conclude
that he fails to make the requisite showing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITIONS DENIED

-- 3 of 3 --