Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Douglas Charnock, Jr. V., 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    12 views3 pages
    Douglas Charnock petitions for a writ of mandamus to stay the entry of judgment in his pending divorce proceeding in state court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denies the petition. The court concludes that mandamus relief is only available in extraordinary circumstances and when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. The court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials or review final state court orders. The relief sought by Charnock through mandamus is not available, so the court denies the petition.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-12-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-2100

    Original Title

    In Re: Douglas Charnock, Jr. v., 4th Cir. (2014)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Douglas Charnock petitions for a writ of mandamus to stay the entry of judgment in his pending divorce proceeding in state court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denies the petition. The court concludes that mandamus relief is only available in extraordinary circumstances and when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. The court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials or review final state court orders. The relief sought by Charnock through mandamus is not available, so the court denies the petition.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    12 views3 pages

    In Re: Douglas Charnock, Jr. V., 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Douglas Charnock petitions for a writ of mandamus to stay the entry of judgment in his pending divorce proceeding in state court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denies the petition. The court concludes that mandamus relief is only available in extraordinary circumstances and when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. The court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials or review final state court orders. The relief sought by Charnock through mandamus is not available, so the court denies the petition.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-2100

    In re:

    DOUGLAS C. CHARNOCK, JR.,


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.


    (No. 2:14-CV-00229-RAJ-LRL)

    Submitted:

    December 16, 2014

    Before DUNCAN
    Circuit Judge.

    and

    DIAZ,

    Circuit

    Decided:

    Judges,

    December 18, 2014

    and

    DAVIS,

    Senior

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Douglas C. Charnock, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Douglas

    C.

    Charnock,

    Jr.,

    petitions

    for

    writ

    of

    mandamus seeking an order to stay the entry of judgment in his


    pending divorce proceeding in state court.

    We conclude that

    Charnock is not entitled to mandamus relief.


    Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
    only

    in

    Dist.

    extraordinary

    Court,

    Moussaoui,
    mandamus

    426

    333

    U.S.

    F.3d

    relief

    circumstances.

    is

    394,

    509,

    402

    516-17

    available

    v.

    (1976);
    (4th

    only

    clear right to the relief sought.

    Kerr

    United

    Cir.

    when

    United

    States

    2003).

    the

    States
    v.

    Further,

    petitioner

    has

    In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

    Assn, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).


    This
    mandamus

    court

    relief

    does

    against

    not

    state

    have

    jurisdiction

    officials,

    Gurley

    v.

    to

    grant

    Superior

    Court of Mecklenburg Cnty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969),
    and

    does

    orders.

    not

    have

    jurisdiction

    to

    review

    final

    state

    court

    Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S.

    462, 482 (1983).


    The relief sought by Charnock 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

    also deny Charnocks motions to intervene and expedite as moot.


    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

    You might also like