In re: Kamani Johnson

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 3, 2025

Docket25-1766

StatusUnpublished

This text of In re: Kamani Johnson (In re: Kamani Johnson) 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: Kamani Johnson, (4th Cir. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1766 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/03/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1766

In re: KAMANI STANLEY SHAQUR JOHNSON, I, a/k/a Komma, a/k/a Kazz,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Prohibition to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. (4:23-cr-00054-AWA-DEM-32)

Submitted: August 28, 2025 Decided: September 3, 2025

Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kamani Stanley Shaqur Johnson, I, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1766 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/03/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Kamani Stanley Shaqur Johnson petitions for a writ of prohibition, asking this court

to prohibit the district court from exercising jurisdiction over his criminal charges. We

conclude that Johnson is not entitled to the relief he seeks. “[A] writ of prohibition is a

drastic and extraordinary remedy which should be granted only when the petitioner has

shown [that] his right to the writ [is] clear and undisputable[,] . . . that the actions of the

court were a clear abuse of discretion,” In re Vargas, 723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir. 1983),

and that he has “no other adequate means to attain the desired relief,” In re Sch. Asbestos

Litig., 921 F.2d 1310, 1314 (3d Cir. 1990) (citation modified). A writ of prohibition may

not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Vargas, 723 F.2d at 1468; see United States v.

Foster, 296 F.2d 249, 251 (4th Cir. 1961). The relief sought by Johnson is not available

by way of a writ of prohibition.

Accordingly, we deny Johnson’s petition. We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

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

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1766 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/03/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1766

In re: KAMANI STANLEY SHAQUR JOHNSON, I, a/k/a Komma, a/k/a Kazz,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Prohibition to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. (4:23-cr-00054-AWA-DEM-32)

Submitted: August 28, 2025 Decided: September 3, 2025

Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kamani Stanley Shaqur Johnson, I, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1766 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/03/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Kamani Stanley Shaqur Johnson petitions for a writ of prohibition, asking this court

to prohibit the district court from exercising jurisdiction over his criminal charges. We

conclude that Johnson is not entitled to the relief he seeks. “[A] writ of prohibition is a

drastic and extraordinary remedy which should be granted only when the petitioner has

shown [that] his right to the writ [is] clear and undisputable[,] . . . that the actions of the

court were a clear abuse of discretion,” In re Vargas, 723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir. 1983),

and that he has “no other adequate means to attain the desired relief,” In re Sch. Asbestos

Litig., 921 F.2d 1310, 1314 (3d Cir. 1990) (citation modified). A writ of prohibition may

not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Vargas, 723 F.2d at 1468; see United States v.

Foster, 296 F.2d 249, 251 (4th Cir. 1961). The relief sought by Johnson is not available

by way of a writ of prohibition.

Accordingly, we deny Johnson’s petition. We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

Related

In Re Grand Jury Proceedings, Subpoena to Ray M. Vargas. Sangre De Cristo Community Mental Health Service, Inc. v. United States of America, Ray M. Vargas v. Santiago Campos, United States District Judge

723 F.2d 1461 (Tenth Circuit, 1983)

In Re School Asbestos Litigation. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. v. The Honorable James McGirr Kelly, Nominal and Barnwell School District No. 45, in Re School Asbestos Litigation. United States Gypsum Company v. The Honorable James McGirr Kelly, Nominal and Barnwell School District No. 45, School District of Lancaster, Manheim Township School District, Lampeter-Strasburg School District, Board of Education of the Memphis City Schools, and a Conditionally Certified Class, in Re School Asbestos Litigation. Fibreboard Corporation v. The Honorable James McGirr Kelly, Nominal and Barnwell School District No. 45, School District of Lancaster, Manheim Township School District, Lampeter-Strasburg School District, Board of Education of the Memphis City Schools, and a Conditionally Certified Class, in Re School Asbestos Litigation. W.R. Grace & Co. v. The Honorable James McGirr Kelly, Nominal and Barnwell School District No. 45, School District of Lancaster, Manheim Township School District, Lampeter-Strasburg School District, Board of Education of the Memphis City Schools, and a Conditionally Certified Class

921 F.2d 1310 (Third Circuit, 1990)

United States v. Foster

296 F.2d 249 (Fourth Circuit, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

In re: Kamani Johnson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kamani-johnson-ca4-2025.