Filed: Aug. 29, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1775 In Re: CLAUDE RAYMOND CURRY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Prohibition. Submitted: August 24, 2000 Decided: August 29, 2000 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Claude Raymond Curry, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Claude Raymond Curry
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1775 In Re: CLAUDE RAYMOND CURRY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Prohibition. Submitted: August 24, 2000 Decided: August 29, 2000 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Claude Raymond Curry, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Claude Raymond Curry h..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1775
In Re: CLAUDE RAYMOND CURRY,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Prohibition.
Submitted: August 24, 2000 Decided: August 29, 2000
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Claude Raymond Curry, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Claude Raymond Curry has filed a petition for a writ of pro-
hibition, requesting an order stating that a federal district judge
in West Virginia is to accept “no order, decree or interpleader”
that violates his constitutional rights. We dismiss the petition.
A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy to be granted
only when the petitioner has shown his right to the writ to be
clear and indisputable. See In re: Vargas,
723 F.2d 1461, 1468
(10th Cir. 1983). Here, Curry states that the order is necessary
because he intends to file a lawsuit to recover and obtain com-
pensation for property that was allegedly illegally seized from
him. This is not a reason for granting the extraordinary relief
sought. We therefore deny the motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and dismiss the petition for a writ of prohibition. 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