Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01849/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01849-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shaheen Cabbagestalk
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1849

In re: SHAHEEN CABBAGESTALK,

 Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 21, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shaheen Cabbagestalk, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1849 Doc: 19 Filed: 12/21/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Shaheen Cabbagestalk petitions for a writ of mandamus 

seeking an order directing the district court to reinstate two 

of his civil actions. 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). 

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 for writ of mandamus. We 

deny all of Cabbagestalk’s pending motions. 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

Appeal: 15-1849 Doc: 19 Filed: 12/21/2015 Pg: 2 of 2