Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

In Re: Cowgill v., 04-6541 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-6541 Visitors: 10
Filed: Oct. 19, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6541 In Re: RALPH H. COWGILL, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (CA-02-263-6) Submitted: September 29, 2004 Decided: October 19, 2004 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ralph H. Cowgill, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ralph H. Cowgill filed a peti
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6541 In Re: RALPH H. COWGILL, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (CA-02-263-6) Submitted: September 29, 2004 Decided: October 19, 2004 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ralph H. Cowgill, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ralph H. Cowgill filed a petition for an original writ of habeas corpus challenging his federal conviction for mailing threatening communications and the attendant sixteen-month sentence. This court ordinarily declines to entertain original habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), and this case provides no reason to depart from the general rule. Moreover, this is the petitioner’s second habeas petition. Because the interests of justice would not be served by transferring a case that should be dismissed to the district court, we dismiss the petition. Cf. Fed. R. App. P. 22(a). We further deny Cowgill’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, to reopen pro se cases, and to charge judges and court officers with false imprisonment and other alleged offenses. 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. PETITION DISMISSED - 2 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer