In re: Shani Abrar

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999799287-2]; denying supplemental motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999845937-2], denying motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999785517-2] Originating case number: 2:11-cr-00034-RBS-DEM-3 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999895649]. Mailed to: S. Abrar. [16-1355]

Appeal: 16-1355

Doc: 11

Filed: 07/25/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1355

In re:

SHANI NURANI SHIEKH ABRAR,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted:

July 21, 2016

(No. 2:11-cr-00034-RBS-DEM-3)

Decided:

July 25, 2016

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shani Nurani Shiekh Abrar, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1355

Doc: 11

Filed: 07/25/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Shani Nurani Shiekh Abrar petitions for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order compelling the district court to appoint him
counsel to assist Abrar in filing a habeas motion.

Mandamus

relief

only

is

a

drastic

remedy

extraordinary circumstances.
394,

402

(1976);

United

516-17 (4th Cir. 2003).

and

should

be

used

in

Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S.

States

v.

Moussaoui,

333

F.3d

509,

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).

Abrar has not established that he has a clear right to

appointment

of

counsel,

exist

justifying

grant

leave

to

or

mandamus
proceed

in

that

extraordinary

relief.
forma

circumstances

Accordingly,
pauperis,

we

although
deny

Abrar’s

petition and supplemental petition for a writ of mandamus.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

we

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

2