In re: Shaheen Cabbagestalk

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999572404-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999562363-2] Originating case number: 5:14-cv-03771-RMG-KDW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999628010]. Mailed to: Cabbagestalk. [15-1367]

Appeal: 15-1367

Doc: 12

Filed: 07/27/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1367

In re:

SHAHEEN CABBAGESTALK,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(No. 5:14-cv-03771-RMG-KDW)

Submitted:

July 23, 2015

Decided:

July 27, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shaheen Cabbagestalk, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1367

Doc: 12

Filed: 07/27/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Shaheen Cabbagestalk petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking
an order directing the dismissal of state criminal indictments
against him.

We conclude that Cabbagestalk is not entitled to

mandamus relief.
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). Further,
this court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief
against state officials, Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg
Cnty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), and does not have
jurisdiction to review final state court orders, Dist. of Columbia
Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983).
The relief sought by Cabbagestalk is not available by way of
mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

2

Appeal: 15-1367

Doc: 12

adequately

Filed: 07/27/2015

presented

in

the

Pg: 3 of 3

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

3