In re: Lawrence Crawford
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motions granted to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000077727-2], [1000077637-2], [1000069649-2]; Motion for change of venue denied [1000099765-2]; Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) denied [1000054606-2] Originating case number: 5:17-cv-00105-BHH, 8:16-cv-03909-RBH, 9:16-cv-03808-TLW-BM, 1:16-cv-03756-MBS, 1:16-cv-03853-RMG, 9:17-cv-00025-CMC-BM. Copies to all parties and the district court. . Mailed to: Anthony Cook, Lawrence Crawford, David Duren, Robert Mitchell and Yahya Muquit. [17-1415]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
In re: LAWRENCE CRAWFORD; YAHYA MUQUIT, a/k/a Yahya Muquit;
ANTHONY COOK; ROBERT MITCHELL; DAVID DUREN; VINCENT
JERODE BEATON, a/k/a Vincent J. Beaton,
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:17-cv-00105-BHH; 8:16-cv-03909-RBH; 9:16-cv03808-TLW-BM; 1:16-cv-03756-MBS; 1:16-cv-03853-RMG; 9:17-cv-00025-CMC-BM)
Submitted: August 24, 2017
Decided: August 28, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lawrence Crawford, Yahya Muquit, Anthony Cook, Robert Mitchell, David Duren,
Vincent Jerode Beaton, Petitioners Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
Petitioners seek multiple forms of mandamus relief, including writs of mandamus
against multiple federal judges and a state court judge. Petitioners also seek to proceed in
forma pauperis and have filed a motion for change of venue. 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 reviewed Petitioners’ filings and conclude that Petitioners have
not established that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting mandamus relief. To
the extent Petitioners challenge the district court’s rulings in their respective federal 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). And to the extent Petitioners ask that the
named judges be ordered to recuse themselves from participation in their respective
actions, Petitioners have not established extrajudicial 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, we deny the motion for change of venue 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
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?