eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 2015-12

In Re: Shaheen Cabbagestalk v. , 626 F. App'x 431 ( 2015 )


Menu:
 
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1818
In re:   SHAHEEN CABBAGESTALK,
Petitioner.
No. 15-1883
In re:   SHAHEEN CABBAGESTALK,
Petitioner.
On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus.
(No. 5:14-cv-03771-RMG)
Submitted:   December 17, 2015            Decided:   December 21, 2015
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shaheen Cabbagestalk, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shaheen    Cabbagestalk       petitions      for    a    writ   of   mandamus
seeking an order directing his immediate release from custody
after a state conviction for armed robbery.                      We conclude that
Cabbagestalk is not entitled to mandamus relief.
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).       Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal.                    In
re Lockheed Martin Corp.,
    503 F.3d 351
    , 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
Further, this court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus
relief    against    state     officials,       Gurley    v.   Superior     Court    of
Mecklenburg Cty.,
    411 F.2d 586
    , 587 (4th Cir. 1969), and does
not have jurisdiction to review final state court orders, Dist.
of   Columbia     Court   of   Appeals     v.    Feldman,
    460 U.S. 462
    ,    482
(1983).
The relief sought by Cabbagestalk is not available by way
of mandamus.       Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, we deny the petitions and amended petition for
writ    of    mandamus.        We   deny   all     of    Cabbagestalk’s      pending
motions.       We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
2
legal    contentions    are   adequately   presented    in     the   materials
before   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid    the    decisional
process.
PETITIONS DENIED
3