In Re: Yahya Muquit, No. 16-1953 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1953 In re: YAHYA MUQUIT, a/k/a Yahya Muqit; DAVID DUREN; ANTHONY COOK; LAWRENCE CRAWFORD, a/k/a Jonah Gabriel, a/k/a Jahjah T. Tishbite, Petitioners. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 00992-TMC-PJG) Submitted: (8:14-cv-03555-RBH; 0:16-cv- November 22, 2016 Before DIAZ and Circuit Judge. THACKER, Decided: Circuit Judges, November 29, 2016 and DAVIS, Senior Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Yahya Muquit, David Petitioners Pro Se. Duren, Anthony Cook, Lawrence Crawford, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Petitioners including Court a seek writ Judge R. of several mandamus Bryan forms against Harwell. of mandamus United Petitioners States have relief, District also filed motions to supplement their mandamus petition and for ruling of law and recusal, as well as applications to proceed in forma pauperis. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. 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 Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). We have Petitioners reviewed not filings conclude that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting mandamus relief. To the extent challenge established and that Petitioners have Petitioners’ the district court’s rulings in their respective district court actions, mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). that Judge respective Harwell district be And to the extent Petitioners ask ordered court to recuse actions, 2 himself Petitioners from have their not established extra-judicial bias. See In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826-27 (4th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, although we grant Petitioners’ applications to proceed in forma pauperis and their motion to supplement their mandamus petition, we deny the motion for ruling of law and recusal, and deny mandamus 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 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
