In re: David Lee Smith

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1131
In re: DAVID LEE SMITH,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. (5:24-ct-03192-M-RJ)
Submitted: July 17, 2025 Decided: August 7, 2025
Before QUATTLEBAUM, BENJAMIN, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Lee Smith, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
David Lee Smith has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order from
this court directing the district court to: construe his letter requesting a courtesy copy of
the district court’s docket as an “emergency request to issue a recommendation” that a
North Carolina state court judge reconsider his motion for appropriate relief; find that, if
another state judge had known he would be compelled to serve his second prison sentence
during the COVID-19 pandemic, the judge would have consolidated his sentences; and
recommend that the first state judge order the consolidation of his prison sentences and
order his custodian to release him from prison without conditions. Smith also moves to
amend his petition, requesting in his amendment that this court instruct the district court
to: find a state court judge would have granted his motion to consolidate his prison
sentences; order the consolidation of those sentences; and release him from incarceration.
On December 10, 2020, this court enjoined Smith from filing “in any civil matter”
any “original action, petition, or motion in this court unless this court has certified that the
filing is not frivolous.” In re Smith, No. 19-1874 (4th Cir. Dec. 10, 2020) (unpublished
order). On June 30, 2025, we ordered Smith to show compliance with this injunction order
or other good cause for his case to proceed. Having reviewed Smith’s response to this
order, we find his arguments unpersuasive and conclude that the petition and the amended
petition are barred by the injunction order. We therefore grant Smith’s motion to amend
and dismiss the mandamus petition as amended.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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 DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --