In re: Savino Braxton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis [1000239416-2] in 18-1085; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [1000227552-2] in 18-1085, denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [1000225735-2] in 18-6030; denying Motion for writ of mandamus [1000227550-2] in 18-1085, denying supplemental Motion for writ of mandamus [1000226597-2] in 18-1085 Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00478-JKB-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000269472]. Mailed to: Savino Braxton & John Purcell, Jr. [18-1085, 18-6030]

Appeal: 18-1085

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/03/2018

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1085

In re: SAVINO BRAXTON,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:09-cr-00478-JKB-1)

No. 18-6030

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SAVINO BRAXTON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:09-cr-00478-JKB-1)
________________
Submitted: March 29, 2018

Decided: April 3, 2018

Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Appeal: 18-1085

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/03/2018

Pg: 2 of 4

No. 18-1085, Petition denied, and No. 18-6030, Dismissed by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Savino Braxton, Petitioner/Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Purcell, Jr., Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 18-1085

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/03/2018

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
In No. 18-1085, Savino Braxton petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an
order barring both a district court judge and an Assistant United States Attorney from
participation in Braxton’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. Mandamus is a drastic
remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. Dist. Court, 426
U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003).
Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503
F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Further, mandamus 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). Braxton has not established a clear right to the relief sought.
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition
for writ of mandamus.
In No. 18-6030, Braxton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his
motion seeking the recusal of the district court judge and the Assistant United States
Attorney from the § 2255 motion. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28
U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337
U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Braxton seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor
an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction.

3

Appeal: 18-1085

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/03/2018

Pg: 4 of 4

The motions for appointment of counsel are denied.

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.

No. 18-1085, PETITION DENIED;
No. 18-6030, DISMISSED

4