Case ID: f-appx_707/html/0189-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

IN RE: Shaheen CABBAGESTALK, Petitioner.
    No. 17-1913
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: December 21, 2017
    Decided: December 27, 2017
    Shaheen Cabbagestalk, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior .Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 and also directing the United States Supreme Court to file his petition for writ of certiorari. 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, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (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). This court also 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) (per curiam), and does not have jurisdiction to review final state court orders, Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (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 petition and supplemental petitions for a 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.

PETITIONS DENIED