UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-760

In Re: ELDON LOWELL YOCUM,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Submitted: January 15, 1998 Decided: January 26, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eldon Lowell Yocum, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Eldon Lowell Yocum, a federal prisoner, has filed in this

court an original petition for habeas corpus relief and a motion to

institute criminal proceedings against numerous individuals. See

(1994). This court's jurisdiction over original ac-

tions for habeas corpus relief is significantly circumscribed. See

(1994). As a result, we must dismiss this action.

Yocum's application is fatally flawed on several fronts. The

application is not verified and fails to identify with any speci-

ficity the conviction and sentence of which Yocum challenges the validity. * A significant portion of the relief Yocum appears to be seeking is the production of documents from various courts around

the country and is more appropriately sought in another forum.

Moreover, this court may only entertain such an application where the document states the reason for failing to file the application

in the district court of the district in which he is in custody.

See

Yocum baldly asserts that the district court is biased.

This assertion, without more, is not a sufficient reason for failing to pursue this application in the most appropriate forum.

Because of the numerous deficiencies in Yocum's application, we

dismiss this attempt at habeas corpus relief.

* Although this court has, on occasion, transferred similar actions to the appropriate district court, the obtuse nature of Yocum's application prevents any degree of certainty regarding which court that might be.

2 Yocum's motion to "Charge Extortion" is denied because this

court does not institute criminal prosecutions. In light of our

dismissal of Yocum's petition, we deny both motions for release. We

deny the motions to file a civil complaint in this court and to

proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3