In re: Shaheen Cabbagestalk


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-1818 Doc: 23 Filed: 12/21/2015 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1818 In re: SHAHEEN CABBAGESTALK, Petitioner.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 Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?