Kyeem King v. State of Maryland; Prince Georges County; Detective John Paddy

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6930
KYEEM KING,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND; PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY; DETECTIVE JOHN
PADDY,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (1:25-cv-02088-DKC)
Submitted: February 17, 2026 Decided: February 20, 2026
Before QUATTLEBAUM, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kyeem King, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew John DiMiceli, Assistant Attorney General,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Kyeem King seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting the State’s motion to
stay King’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 proceedings and denying King’s motions for assignment of
counsel and for bail or release. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed.
R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The
portion of the district court’s order granting the State’s motion for a stay and denying
King’s motion for assignment of counsel is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. See Kell v. Benzon, 925 F.3d 448, 467 (10th Cir. 2019)
(stay order); Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 964 (4th Cir. 1987) (assignment of counsel).
To the extent King appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for bail or release, we
have reviewed the record and discern no abuse of discretion. See Pagan v. United States,
353 F.3d 1343, 1345-46, 1345 n.4 (11th Cir. 2003) (collecting cases and holding order
denying motion for release on bail is an appealable collateral order); Pouncy v. Palmer,
993 F.3d 461, 463 (6th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review).
Accordingly, we deny King’s motions for bail or release, for an injunction, for
assignment of counsel, and for production of transcripts at government expense; deny as
unnecessary King’s motion for a certificate of appealability;* affirm the district court’s
denial of King’s motion for bail or release; and dismiss the remainder of the appeal for lack
* See Pouncy, 993 F.3d at 465 (“Appeals from denied bail motions amount to
collateral orders that do not require a certificate of appealability.”); Illarramendi v. United
States, 906 F.3d 268, 270 (2d Cir. 2018) (same).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
of jurisdiction. 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
DISMISSED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --