Case ID: f-appx_26/html/0295-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re Cornelius TUCKER, Jr., Petitioner.
    No. 01-7790.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 17, 2002.
    Decided Jan. 29, 2002.
    
      Cornelius Tucker, Jr., Pro Se.
    Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

Cornelius Tucker has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the district court to file his complaint and attacking the validity of a pre-filing injunction. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and is not available where there are other means by which the petitioner might obtain the requested relief. In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987). Further, mandamus is not a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979). Tucker’s proper remedy lies in an appeal from the district court’s denial of leave to file his complaint. This court has previously considered and rejected Tucker’s appeal of the pre-filing injunction. See Tucker v. Samuel, No. 94-7397, 1995 WL 123803 (4th Cir.1995) (unpublished). Therefore, although we grant Tucker’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his petition for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       To the extent that Tucker is requesting recusal of district court judges through this petition for a writ of mandamus, Tucker has failed to show any extra-judicial source of bias. Accordingly, he is not entitled to such relief. In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir.1987).