Case Name: IN RE: Shapat Ahdawan NABAYA, a/k/a Norman Abbott, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-14
Citations: 693 F. App'x 197
Docket Number: No. 17-1694
Parties: IN RE: Shapat Ahdawan NABAYA, a/k/a Norman Abbott, Petitioner.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 693
Pages: 197–198

Head Matter:
IN RE: Shapat Ahdawan NABAYA, a/k/a Norman Abbott, Petitioner.
No. 17-1694
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 23, 2017
Decided: July 14, 2017
Shapat Ahdawan Nabaya, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shapat Ahdawan Nabaya petitions for a writ of quo warranto challenging the district court's authority over criminal charges against him. He also filed several motions seeking to enjoin the district court's proceedings. We conclude that Na- baya is not entitled to quo warranto or injunctive relief.
A private individual lacks standing to institute a quo warranto proceeding. Newman v. United States ex rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537, 545-46, 35 S.Ct. 881, 59 L.Ed. 1446 (1915). Thus, Nabaya's petition must be denied. We deny as moot Nabaya's motion to stay the district court proceedings pending resolution of this petition.
Nabaya has also filed motions challenging the jurisdiction of the district court and seeking an order from this court enjoining or dismissing the district court proceeding. Nabaya has failed to demonstrate any extraordinary circumstances warranting such relief. We therefore deny his motions for injunctive relief.
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of quo warranto and deny Nabaya's motions for a stay and for in-junctive relief. 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