Case Name: In re Kevin CHAPPELL, Warden of San Quentin State Prison, Kevin Chappell, Warden of San Quentin State Prison, Petitioner, v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno, Respondent, John Michael Beames, Real Party in Interest
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-09-18
Citations: 584 F. App'x 817
Docket Number: No. 14-70836
Parties: In re Kevin CHAPPELL, Warden of San Quentin State Prison, Kevin Chappell, Warden of San Quentin State Prison, Petitioner, v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno, Respondent, John Michael Beames, Real Party in Interest.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 584
Pages: 817–818

Head Matter:
In re Kevin CHAPPELL, Warden of San Quentin State Prison, Kevin Chappell, Warden of San Quentin State Prison, Petitioner, v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno, Respondent, John Michael Beames, Real Party in Interest.
No. 14-70836.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Sept. 8, 2014.
Filed Sept. 18, 2014.
Sean M. McCoy, Deputy Attorney General, Ward Allen Campbell, Esquire, Supervisory, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner.
Timothy Joseph Brosnan, Tim Brosnan, Mill Valley, CA, Joseph Schlesinger, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Harry Simon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Real Party in Interest.
Before: SCHROEDER, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This is a mandamus petition filed by the state. It arises out of habeas proceedings initiated by John Michael Beames, a Cali fornia state prisoner. Those proceedings remain pending before the district court. The state has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir.1977). Accordingly, the petition is denied.
DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.