Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Charles Graham V., 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Charles Francis Graham's petition for a writ of mandamus. Graham sought an order directing the recusal of the district court judge and reinstatement of his habeas corpus petition. The court determined that Graham was not entitled to mandamus relief because such relief is a drastic remedy only used in extraordinary circumstances. The court also found that Graham did not have a clear right to the relief sought and there were no other means for the relief to be granted. Therefore, the court denied Graham's petition.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-04-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-2348

    Original Title

    In Re: Charles Graham v., 4th Cir. (2015)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Charles Francis Graham's petition for a writ of mandamus. Graham sought an order directing the recusal of the district court judge and reinstatement of his habeas corpus petition. The court determined that Graham was not entitled to mandamus relief because such relief is a drastic remedy only used in extraordinary circumstances. The court also found that Graham did not have a clear right to the relief sought and there were no other means for the relief to be granted. Therefore, the court denied Graham's petition.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    8 views2 pages

    In Re: Charles Graham V., 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Charles Francis Graham's petition for a writ of mandamus. Graham sought an order directing the recusal of the district court judge and reinstatement of his habeas corpus petition. The court determined that Graham was not entitled to mandamus relief because such relief is a drastic remedy only used in extraordinary circumstances. The court also found that Graham did not have a clear right to the relief sought and there were no other means for the relief to be granted. Therefore, the court denied Graham's petition.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-2348

    IN RE:

    CHARLES FRANCIS GRAHAM,


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.


    (3:09-cv-00149-RJC)

    Submitted:

    April 23, 2015

    Decided: April 27, 2015

    Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Charles Francis Graham, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Charles Francis Graham petitions for a writ of mandamus
    seeking an order directing the recusal of the district court
    judge and reinstatement of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2012) petition.
    We

    conclude

    that

    Graham

    is

    not

    entitled

    to

    mandamus

    relief.

    Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in


    extraordinary circumstances.

    Kerr v. United States 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 Assn, 860 F.2d 135,
    138 (4th Cir. 1988), and when there are no other means by which
    the relief sought could be granted.

    In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818,

    826 (4th Cir. 1987).


    Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
    pauperis,

    we

    dispense

    with

    contentions

    deny

    are

    oral

    the

    petition

    argument

    adequately

    for

    writ

    because

    presented

    in

    of

    the
    the

    mandamus.

    facts

    We

    and

    legal

    materials

    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    PETITION DENIED

    You might also like