In Re: Rochelle v.

Filing 920070814

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7059

In Re:

OKANG KAREEM ROCHELLE,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:07-hc-02014-BR)

Submitted:

August 3, 2007

Decided:

August 14, 2007

Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Okang Kareem Rochelle, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Okang Kareem Rochelle, a federal inmate, petitions this court for a writ of mandamus. February Carolina. 15, 2007 order from Rochelle's petition challenges a the Eastern District of North

That order denied a pro se motion filed by Rochelle in

which he (1) requested that his August 6, 2007 civil commitment hearing be held, not by video conference, but in open court; (2) requested copies of the discovery motion in his underlying criminal case; (3) requested the Public Defenders' Office to be removed from his case; (4) challenged the adequacy of his evaluations at the Federal Medical Center at Butner, North Carolina; and (5) requested that he be released from the Federal Medical Center so that he could acquire resources to hire private counsel and mount his defense. Rochelle's mandamus petition reasserts claims raised in his pro se motion. With respect to his request to be released from

Butner Medical Center, Rochelle fails to demonstrate a clear entitlement to a writ of mandamus on this request. See In re First

Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Finally, Rochelle's remaining claims are not cognizable in a petition for writ of mandamus. Rochelle's motion to proceed in Accordingly, although we grant forma pauperis, we deny his

petition for writ of mandamus.

We also deny Rochelle's motion to In light of this disposition,

stay the civil commitment hearing.

- 2 -

Rochelle's motion to expedite is denied as moot. oral argument because the facts and legal

We dispense with contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and oral argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

- 3 -