In re Cowgill

Fourth Circuit

In re Cowgill

111 F. App'x 171

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 19, 2004

DocketNo. 04-6541

StatusPublished

This text of 111 F. App'x 171 (In re Cowgill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Cowgill, 111 F. App'x 171 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

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 Cow-gill’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 [172]*172the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DISMISSED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 Cow-gill’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 [172]*172the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DISMISSED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 F. App'x 171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-cowgill-ca4-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack