Fourth Circuit Denies Mandamus Petition

4th Circuit Daily Opinions

Filed February 23rd, 2026

Detected February 24th, 2026

Summary

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Martinez Orlandis Black. The court found that mandamus relief was not appropriate in this case, as it does not have jurisdiction to grant such relief against state officials or review final state court orders.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in an unpublished per curiam opinion, denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Martinez Orlandis Black. The petitioner sought to direct North Carolina courts to follow orders issued in his state court proceedings. The court cited that mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary circumstances and that it lacks jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials or review final state court orders, making the requested relief unavailable.

This decision means the petitioner's attempt to use federal mandamus power to compel state court actions has been unsuccessful. As an unpublished opinion, it does not set binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit. No specific compliance actions are required for regulated entities, as this is a specific case ruling and not a new regulation or guidance.

Source document (simplified)

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25 - 2440 In re: MARTINE Z ORLAND IS BLACK, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Submitted: February 19, 202 6 Decided: February 23, 2026 Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublishe d per curiam opinion. Martinez Orlandis Black, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding p recedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM: Martinez O rlandis Black petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing North Carolina courts to follow order s issued in Black’s state court proceedings. We conclude that Black is not entitled to mand amus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic re medy and should be used on ly in extraordinary circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Mu rphy - 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 so ught and “has no other adequate means to attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy - Brown, 9 07 F.3d a t 795 (citation modified). This court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials, Gurley v. Superior Ct. of M ecklenburg Cnty., 411 F.2d 586, 58 7 (4th Cir. 1969), and it doe s not have jurisdiction to review final state court orders, D istrict of C olumbia Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 4 62, 482 (1983). Thus, t he relief sought by Black is not available by way of manda mus. We therefore deny the petition for writ o f mandamus. We dispen se with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in th e materials before this court and argument would no t aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIE D