Omar Pearson

Filing 920080328


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1207 In Re: OMAR DEMITRIOUS PEARSON, Petitioner. No. 08-1222 In Re: OMAR DEMITRIOUS PEARSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:08-cv-00013-WWD) Submitted: March 25, 2008 Decided: March 28, 2008 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Omar Demitrious Pearson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Omar Demitrious Pearson has filed two petitions for writ of mandamus seeking orders directing the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission to fully investigate all incoming claims of actual innocence under North Carolina's habitual felon statute, directing the district court not to dismiss his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000) petition and to declare North Carolina's habitual felon statute unconstitutional. mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan It may not be used as a We conclude Pearson is not entitled to Ass'n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). substitute for appeal. 960 (4th Cir. 1979). In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). The relief sought by Pearson is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, while we grant Pearson's applications for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petitions for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITIONS DENIED - 2 -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?