In re: Yahya Muquit

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motions to proceed in forma pauperis granted (FRAP 24) [999937245-2], [999935942-2], [999935941-2], [999935938-2], [999935937-2]; Motion to supplement granted [999931895-2]; Motions for other relief denied [999945827-2], [999931895-3]; Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) denied [999935857-2], [999914560-2]. Originating case number: 8:14-cv-03555-RBH, 0:16-cv-00992-TMC-PJG. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999976589]. Mailed to: Anthony Cook, Lawrence Crawford, David Duren and Yahya Muquit. [16-1953]

Appeal: 16-1953

Doc: 42

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1953

In re:
YAHYA MUQUIT, a/k/a Yahya Muqit; DAVID DUREN;
ANTHONY COOK; LAWRENCE CRAWFORD, a/k/a Jonah Gabriel, a/k/a
Jahjah T. Tishbite,

Petitioners.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
00992-TMC-PJG)

Submitted:

(8:14-cv-03555-RBH; 0:16-cv-

November 22, 2016

Before DIAZ and
Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

November 29, 2016

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Yahya Muquit, David
Petitioners Pro Se.

Duren,

Anthony

Cook,

Lawrence

Crawford,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1953

Doc: 42

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

seek

forms

PER CURIAM:
Petitioners
including
Court

a

writ

Judge

R.

of

several
mandamus

Bryan

against

Harwell.

of

mandamus

United

Petitioners

States
have

relief,
District

also

filed

motions to supplement their mandamus petition and for ruling of
law and recusal, as well as applications to proceed in forma
pauperis.
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).
We

have

Petitioners

reviewed

not

filings

conclude

that

extraordinary

circumstances exist warranting mandamus relief.

To the extent

challenge

established

and

that

Petitioners

have

Petitioners’

the

district

court’s

rulings

in

their

respective district court actions, mandamus may not be used as a
substitute for appeal.

In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d

351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
that

Judge

respective

Harwell
district

be

And to the extent Petitioners ask

ordered
court

to

recuse

actions,

2

himself

Petitioners

from
have

their
not

Appeal: 16-1953

Doc: 42

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

established extra-judicial bias.

See In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818,

826-27 (4th Cir. 1987).
Accordingly, although we grant Petitioners’ applications to
proceed in forma pauperis and their motion to supplement their
mandamus petition, we deny the motion for ruling of law and
recusal,

and

deny

mandamus

relief.

We

dispense

with

oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

3