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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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