In re: Shaheen Cabbagestalk

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999548297-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999548294-2] Originating case number: 5:14-cv-03771-RMG-KDW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999658256]. Mailed to: Shaheen Cabbagestalk LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 205 Ridgeville, SC 29472-0000. [15-1282]

Appeal: 15-1282

Doc: 23

Filed: 09/11/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1282

In re:

SHAHEEN CABBAGESTALK,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus (5:14-cv-03771-RMG-KDW)

Submitted:

September 9, 2015

Decided:

September 11, 2015

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shaheen Cabbagestalk, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1282

Doc: 23

Filed: 09/11/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Shaheen

Cabbagestalk

petitions

for

a

writ

of

mandamus

seeking an order directing his immediate release from prison.
We

conclude

relief.

that

Cabbagestalk

is

not

entitled

to

mandamus

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used

only in extraordinary circumstances.

Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court,

426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d
509,

516-17

(4th

Cir.

2003).

Further,

mandamus

relief

is

available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the
relief sought.

In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d

135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).
Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal.

In re

Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
relief

sought

mandamus.

by

Cabbagestalk

is

not

available

by

The

way

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
dispense

of

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

2