No. 25-5513

In Re Olamide Olatayo Bello

Lower Court: N/A
Docketed: 2025-09-02
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appellate-jurisdiction criminal-procedure district-court mandamus notice-of-appeal pro-se
Latest Conference: 2025-11-07
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether an Appellant proceeding Pro Se without counsel and without notice can challenge a district court's decision through a writ of mandamus or appeal when the court allegedly disregarded appellate jurisdiction during a pretrial final judgment order

Question Presented (from Petition)

No question identified. : Question CM rppelicite Cuu^t hresped u/e ofdhi DistrCcf feot tsWhet her an Appellant that Proceeded On frpp-ecd Piro S-e Oriel Intention^ did So and Without a Course/ and (AUfMout Qnj notice <% Appearance fronn arug Counsel f and With Cl Motion andlbr Po-hce fo_ proceed Pro Se In th-? Appellate Courh, Present a, Question u(A/h-ethlr h^ (Yl&j Proceed Pro Se f/ Un TheWhether the Gwemowit □r^uawt ttW Cf the district Court hud Hot €nter-ed O final Un a CnnninaJ Case nt m a hotous pretriUl final Jud^-eflnent Orders appeal Can Stan fl th-C Appe lla/fg^ CouM dccvsion ho dismiss On appeal whether a Writ of Manda mus IS a proper \Cerw to Chcd l-fng e flhe district Court's Improp-er denia/ Of Designation Of [Word on Appeals and after :he AypeUanfs Severed Motions Comp^lhny Orullbr W,ltesfin<y {W Designa tion Dt Record On fl-ppecds in Che Apppellcch ’ Court Qnd District Cowl ? tXIbefaer a fflfrho n 4o dismis s p,n appeal bj a cun Attorney om a Criminal Case in /be dtsfricf Court Can Stand Q decision Of fhl Appellate Court fa diamrs; _ On appeal Wherr^ilnen an Jtppellant proceeded on _ Motion andlor notice fa proceed on an Appeal Pro $e 7 Whe-lber (YlandrifrtiS is a proper remedy i/uhun Ibe (district Court disregafaed dhe appellafa'-s Cmut Jun delicti on pendency the pretHcd final hidyment Ordftr appeal , andlor far Appellate Coot -CalUol Po pmperV j exercise its p&uoer Qndlor Jurisdiction. Orullh f the government antllor the district foarf brought fae ProSeCci-hoo bj a reason forbidden Qndlor Contrwve n \wifa jfaeJ^ —_ ■ J PATIOS To Tltf P/ZOCec-DWtn •• _ CHA LANA OUM&gAssistant United States At-iornej Texas State Bar Mo24103)3 q J \o| East_ParV feoule vat cl , Suifp , Plano tTexas 75074 972^3^9 ~ 12 0) ; GW) 509" 12 09 ffo-y) IJMITE-Q STATE'S DISWCT (W 1 Eastern Districto-f Texas '01 EP-PCan S+ree-f5h-erpticm TV ^CHo UMlTHLSTfiTES cam OE QfPfcALs Flf-tti Circuit Goo S Maestri place_ _ 9U.it 115 N«aj Orleans LA 70 130 ■ . ■ ■ H

Docket Entries

2025-11-10
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of mandamus/prohibition is dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
2025-10-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/7/2025.
2025-09-23
Waiver of United States of right to respond submitted.
2025-09-23
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2025-08-22
Petition for a writ of mandamus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 2, 2025)

Attorneys

Olamide Bello
Olamide Olatayo Bello — Petitioner
Olamide Olatayo Bello — Petitioner
United States
D. John SauerSolicitor General, Respondent
D. John SauerSolicitor General, Respondent