In re: Ta’kuan Bingham

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-2256
In re: TA’KUAN BINGHAM,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Submitted: March 11, 2025 Decided: March 13, 2025
Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ta’Kuan Bingham, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Ta’Kuan Bingham petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the
state court to grant him a new trial in his 2021 convictions. We conclude that Bingham 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).
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 Bingham 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 of 2 --