Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01367/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01367-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shaheen Cabbagestalk
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1367

In re: SHAHEEN CABBAGESTALK,

 Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(No. 5:14-cv-03771-RMG-KDW)

Submitted: July 23, 2015 Decided: July 27, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING, 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 15-1367 Doc: 12 Filed: 07/27/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Shaheen Cabbagestalk petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking 

an order directing the dismissal of state criminal indictments

against him. 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 

Cnty., 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 petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

Appeal: 15-1367 Doc: 12 Filed: 07/27/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

Appeal: 15-1367 Doc: 12 Filed: 07/27/2015 Pg: 3 of 3