Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Abanoob ABDEL-MALAK, Petitioner.
Abanoob Abdel-Malak, a North Carolina resident, filed a petition for removal of his California state criminal case to federal court in the Middle District of North Carolina. The magistrate judge recommended summarily remanding to the California state court on the ground that the district court lacked jurisdiction. Before the district court accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation, Abdel-Malak filed the subject petition for a writ of mandamus in this court seeking appointment of counsel, access to legal resources, and electronic filing in the district court. We conclude that Abdel-Malak is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380, 124 S.Ct. 2576, 159 L.Ed.2d 459 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795. Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal, In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007), and this court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials, Gurley v. Superior Ct. of Mecklenburg Cnty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969).
The relief sought by Abdel-Malak is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We further deny Abdel-Malak's pending motions for costs, to consolidate, for attorney's fees, to appoint counsel, for oral argument via video or tele-conference, and other relief. We deny as moot his motions for stay pending appeal, to accelerate case processing, and to expedite.
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
PER CURIAM:
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 20-2385
Decided: June 28, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)