Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01568/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01568-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daren Kareem Gadsden
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1568

In re: DAREN KAREEM GADSDEN,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

(1:11-cr-00302-WDQ-3)

Submitted: August 20, 2015 Decided: August 24, 2015

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daren Kareem Gadsden, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1568 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/24/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Daren Kareem Gadsden has petitioned this court for a writ 

of mandamus. In his petition, Gadsden asks this court to: (1)

order the district court to act on his motion asking the 

district court to assess its subject matter jurisdiction over 

his criminal case; and (2) rule on the merits of his motion for 

a judgment of acquittal. Gadsden’s petition also asks that we 

direct the district court to dismiss the criminal matter against 

him. Gadsden has moved to proceed in forma pauperis.

To obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner must show that:

(1) he has a clear and indisputable right to the 

relief sought; (2) the responding party has a clear 

duty to do the specific act requested; (3) the act 

requested is an official act or duty; (4) there are no 

other adequate means to attain the relief he desires; 

and (5) the issuance of the writ will effect right and 

justice in the circumstances.

In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir. 2001) (citation and 

internal quotation marks omitted). We have considered Gadsden’s 

petition and conclude that Gadsden is not entitled to mandamus 

relief. Accordingly, although we grant Gadsden’s motion for 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus 

petition. 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: 15-1568 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/24/2015 Pg: 2 of 2