UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7059
In Re: OKANG KAREEM ROCHELLE,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(5:07-hc-02014-BR)
Submitted: August 3, 2007 Decided: August 14, 2007
Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Okang Kareem Rochelle, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Okang Kareem Rochelle, a federal inmate, petitions this
court for a writ of mandamus. Rochelle’s petition challenges a
February 15, 2007 order from the Eastern District of North
Carolina. That order denied a pro se motion filed by Rochelle in
which he (1) requested that his August 6, 2007 civil commitment
hearing be held, not by video conference, but in open court; (2)
requested copies of the discovery motion in his underlying criminal
case; (3) requested the Public Defenders’ Office to be removed from
his case; (4) challenged the adequacy of his evaluations at the
Federal Medical Center at Butner, North Carolina; and (5) requested
that he be released from the Federal Medical Center so that he
could acquire resources to hire private counsel and mount his
defense.
Rochelle’s mandamus petition reasserts claims raised in
his pro se motion. With respect to his request to be released from
Butner Medical Center, Rochelle fails to demonstrate a clear
entitlement to a writ of mandamus on this request. See In re First
Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).
Finally, Rochelle’s remaining claims are not cognizable in a
petition for writ of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant
Rochelle’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his
petition for writ of mandamus. We also deny Rochelle’s motion to
stay the civil commitment hearing. In light of this disposition,
- 2 -
Rochelle’s motion to expedite is denied as moot. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and oral
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -