UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1275
In Re: PATRICK J. MUHAMMAD,
Petitioner.
No. 07-1291
In Re: PATRICK J. MUHAMMAD,
Petitioner.
On Petitions for Writs of Mandamus.
(8:05-mc-00484; 1:06-cv-03444-CCB)
Submitted: August 17, 2007 Decided: September 5, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit
Judges.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patrick J. Muhammad, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated mandamus petitions, Patrick J.
Muhammad requests that this court issue two orders directing the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland to act.
First, Muhammad asks that this court order the district court to
vacate its order disbarring Muhammad from the practice of law
before that court (No. 07-1275). Muhammad further asks this court
to order the district court to enjoin the Maryland Court of Appeals
from enforcing its order disbarring Muhammad from the practice of
law in Maryland (No. 07-1291). Because we conclude that Muhammad
is not entitled to mandamus relief, we deny both petitions.
This court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus
relief against state officials, see Gurley v. Superior Court of
Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), or to review
state court orders, see District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). Thus, to the extent that the
relief Muhammad seeks would require us to review the Maryland Court
of Appeals’ disbarment order, relief is not available by way of
mandamus.
We also deny Muhammad’s request for an order directing
the district court to vacate its order of disbarment. Mandamus
relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to
the relief sought and no other means to seek the requested relief.
In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.
- 2 -
1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used
only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist.
Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826
(4th Cir. 1987). Muhammad has not established he is entitled to
the relief sought, as he fails to establish the requisite
extraordinary circumstances or clear entitlement to relief.
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, we deny the petitions for writs of mandamus. We further
deny as moot the pending motions to expedite adjudication of these
petitions and for an emergency stay of enforcement of the district
court’s order of disbarment. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITIONS DENIED
- 3 -