In re: Momolu Sirleaf

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis [1000274706-2], updating fee code Originating case number: 8:18-cv-00393-TDC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000309025].. [18-1353]

Appeal: 18-1353

Doc: 9

Filed: 06/08/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1353

In re: PRIEST MOMOLU V.S. SIRLEAF, Priestess Emma S. Urey, Parents and
next Friends of Menelik Nimrod the Blessed one Sirleaf,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (8:18-cv-00393-TDC)

Submitted: June 4, 2018

Decided: June 8, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Momolu V.S. Sirleaf, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 18-1353

Doc: 9

Filed: 06/08/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Momolu V.S. Sirleaf petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from this
court directing the district court to file his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition for Menelik
Sirleaf. The § 2254 petition was filed by the district court on February 5, 2018 and
stricken on April 30, 2018. The district court mailed a copy of its order to Sirleaf’s
address, but it was returned as undeliverable. 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). The
party seeking issuance of the writ must have no other adequate means to attain relief, and
he bears the burden of showing that his right to the writ is clear and indisputable.
Moussaoui, 333 F.3d at 517 (citations omitted). We have reviewed the petition and
conclude that Sirleaf fails to make this showing. Accordingly, although we grant leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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