In re: Shapat Nabaya

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for injunctive relief pending appeal (FRAP 8) [1000102028-2], denying Motion for injunctive relief pending appeal (FRAP 8) [1000099945-2], denying Motion for injunctive relief pending appeal (FRAP 8) [1000097524-2], denying Motion for injunctive relief pending appeal (FRAP 8) [1000095963-2], denying Motion for injunctive relief pending appeal (FRAP 8) [1000094534-2]; denying Motion for extraordinary writ under FRAP 21 [1000093601-2], denying Motion for extraordinary writ under FRAP 21 [1000093546-2], proceed in forma pauperis Originating case number: 3:17-cr-00003-MHL-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000118326]. Mailed to: Shapat Nabaya. [17-1694]

Appeal: 17-1694

Doc: 17

Filed: 07/14/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1694

In Re: SHAPAT AHDAWAN NABAYA, a/k/a Norman Abbott,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Extraordinary Writ.
(3:17-cr-00003-MHL-1)

Submitted: June 23, 2017

Decided: July 14, 2017

Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shapat Ahdawan Nabaya, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-1694

Doc: 17

Filed: 07/14/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Shapat Ahdawan Nabaya petitions for a writ of quo warranto challenging the
district court’s authority over criminal charges against him. He also filed several motions
seeking to enjoin the district court’s proceedings. We conclude that Nabaya is not
entitled to quo warranto or injunctive relief.
A private individual lacks standing to institute a quo warranto proceeding.
Newman v. United States ex rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537, 545-46 (1915). Thus, Nabaya’s
petition must be denied. We deny as moot Nabaya’s motion to stay the district court
proceedings pending resolution of this petition.
Nabaya has also filed motions challenging the jurisdiction of the district court and
seeking an order from this court enjoining or dismissing the district court proceeding.
Nabaya has failed to demonstrate any extraordinary circumstances warranting such relief.
We therefore deny his motions for injunctive relief.
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the
petition for writ of quo warranto and deny Nabaya’s motions for a stay and for injunctive
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

2