In re: Shaheen Cabbagestalk
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for abeyance (Local Rule 12(d)) [999646188-2] in 15-1818; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999636240-2] in 15-1818; denying Motion transfer case [999636231-2] in 15-1818; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999634789-2] in 15-1818, denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999626665-2] in 15-1818; granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999634776-2] in 15-1818; denying Motion to overturn case and grant relief [999626670-2] in 15-1818 Originating case number: 5:14-cv-03771-RMG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999722245]. Mailed to: Shaheen Cabbagestalk. [15-1818, 15-1883]
Appeal: 15-1818
Doc: 23
Filed: 12/21/2015
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1818
In re:
SHAHEEN CABBAGESTALK,
Petitioner.
No. 15-1883
In re:
SHAHEEN CABBAGESTALK,
Petitioner.
On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus.
(No. 5:14-cv-03771-RMG)
Submitted:
December 17, 2015
Decided:
December 21, 2015
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shaheen Cabbagestalk, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-1818
Doc: 23
Filed: 12/21/2015
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Shaheen
Cabbagestalk
petitions
for
a
writ
of
mandamus
seeking an order directing his immediate release from custody
after a state conviction for armed robbery.
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 Cty., 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 petitions and amended petition for
writ
of
motions.
mandamus.
We
deny
all
of
Cabbagestalk’s
pending
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
2
Appeal: 15-1818
legal
before
Doc: 23
contentions
this
court
Filed: 12/21/2015
Pg: 3 of 3
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
PETITIONS DENIED
3
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?