T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has d e ter m in e d u n a n im o u slyth a t o ra l ar g u m e n t w o u ld n o t b e o f m a ter ial a ss ista n c e in th e d e te rm in a tio n o f

th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R. Ap p . P . 3 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) ; 1 0 th Ci r . R. 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t2,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT V E R N E L L M c K N IG H T , J R .,

Pl ai nt i ff–A ppel l ant , N o. 06- 1513 v . ( C a s e N o . 0 6 - c v - 0 1 6 9 8 - Z L W) EL I ZABE TH A. S HUM AKER, Off i c i a l l y/ I n d i v i d u a l l y ; DO UG LAS E. C R E S S L E R , O ffi c i a l l y/ I n d i v i d u a l l y; T HE U. S . AT T OR NE Y F OR T HE DI S TRI CT OF DENVER, CO L OR ADO, (D . C o lo .)

D efen dan t s–A pp el l ees.

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e B RI S CO E , M c KAY , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. P lai n ti ff, a state p ri so n er p roc ee d ing p ro se , ap p ea ls th e d istri ct co u rt ’s deni al of hi s m andamus pe t i t i on and s ubs equentm ot i on forr econs i der at i on and r ecus al . I n hi s pet i t i on, Pl ai nt i ff r eques t ed the di s tr i ctcourtt o compelD e fe n d a n t– A p p e llee U .S . A tto rn e yfo r th e D istric t o f C o lo ra d o is liste d in 1 t he compl ai ntonl yas at t or neyfort he tw o named D efe ndant s . Pl ai nt i ff doe s not a p p e a r t o s e e k a n yin d e p e n d e n t r e lie f f ro m th is D e fe n d a n t. B yth is la n g u a g e , Tra c kw e lldi d notal t eres t abl i s hed pr ece dentt hatcl erks 2 a re m in is te ri a l o ffic e rs w h o m a yn o t a s s u m e ju d ic ia l p o w e rs . See McNei lv. G u th rie , 9 4 5 F .2 d 1 1 6 3 , 1 1 6 5 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 ); Mi dw es t er n D evs . , Inc. v. C i t y of Tu ls a , OK , 3 1 9 F .2 d 5 3 , 5 3 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 6 3 ). R a th e r, Tra c kw e lls i m pl yhel d that c ler k s a c tin g in th e ir o fficia l ca p a c itya s o ffice rs o f a c o u rt— a ss istin g th e c o u rt in i t s j udi ci al funct i ons byper form i ng del egat ed t as ks

— s houl d be tr eat ed as t he cour ti t s el f i n cons t rui ng § 1361.

- 2- D efe ndant s — t he C l erk and C hi ef D eputy C l erk of thi s court

— t o fi l e hi s m ot i on 1 t o r eca l l t he mandat e i n Mc Kn ig h t v. Wh ite , N o. 89- 5163 ( 10th C i r . M ay23, 1 9 9 0 ), a h a b e a s a p p e a l th a t th is c o u rt re so lv e d in 1 9 9 0 . R e a so n in g th a t itw o u ld be i nappr opr i at e fora courtt o i s s ue mandam us agai ns tt he off i cer s of a hi gher cour t , t he di s t r i ctcour tdi s m i s s ed the compl ai ntand deni ed Pl ai nt i ff’ s m ot i on for re c o n sid e ra tio n a n d re c u sa l. O urr ece ntopi ni on i n Trac kw el lv. Uni t ed Stat es G overnm ent , 472 F. 3d 1242 ( 10t h C i r . 2007) , s uppor t s t he court ’ s deci s i on. I n Tra c kw e ll , t he pl ai nt i ff so u g h t m a n d a m u s re lief in th e d istric t co u rt a g a in st th e S u p re m e C o u rt a n d its C l erk, al l egi ng t hatt he C l erk of the C our thad i m pr oper l yr efus ed t o fi l e and t r ans m i tt o J us t i ce St ephen Bre y eran appl i cat i on thatt he pl ai nt i ff ha d s ubm i t t ed chal l engi ng t he cons t i tut i onal i t yof the I r aq W ar . C ons i der i ng bot h the l anguage o f th e sta tu te a n d re lev a n t p o licyc o n c e rn s, w e h e ld th a t § 1 3 6 1 “ d o e s n o t ap p lyto c o u rt s o r t o c o u rt c le rk s p e rfo rm in g ju d ic ia l f u n c tio n s .” Id. a t1 2 4 3 . We

2 concl uded thatbeca us e the C l erk w as “bei ng as ked t o per form a j udi ci al funct i on- 3-

d eleg ated b ythe S u p rem e C o u rt

— the fil ing o f a n ap p li ca ti o n ”— the d istri ct co u rt la c k e d ju ri s d ic tio n to c o n s id e r t h e p la in tiff ’s re q u e s t fo r § 1 3 6 1 m a n d a m u s re lie f. Id . at 12 4 7 . T h u s, u n d er Tra c kw e ll , the di s tr i ctcourtl acke d j ur i s di ct i on over Pl ai nt i ff’ s r eques tfor§ 1361 m andamus r el i ef a gai ns toffi cer s of thi s courtw ho r efus ed t o fi l e hi s m ot i on t o r eca l l the mandat e. A s t o Pet i t i oner ’ s al l egat i on thatthe di s tr i ctcour tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on by deny i ng hi s r eques tforr ecus al , t hi s r eques tw as bas ed on Pet i t i oner ’ s as s er t i on t hat the co urtdem on strat ed b i as bydis m i ssi ng his com plai nt. H ow ever, “adv ers e rul i ngs ar e noti n t hemsel ves gr ounds forr ecus al , ” G las s v. P f ef f er , 849 F. 2d 1261, 1268 ( 10t h C i r . 1988) , and Pet i t i onerdoes notpr ovi de anyotherfac tual a lleg a tio n s in su p p o rt o f h is a rg u m e n t th a t th e c o u rt w a s b ias e d . W e a c c o rd in g ly concl ude thatt he di s t r i ctcourtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on bydeny i ng the mot i on fo r r e c u s a l. P e tit io n e r a lso se e k s to re c o v e r th e c o sts h e in c u rre d in fili n g th is la w su it, p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 4 1 2 . B e c a u se P e tit io n e r is n o t th e p re v a ili n g p a rtyin t he ac t i on, w e nee d notcons i derthi s r eques t . W e al s o D I SM I SS as m oot Pet i t i oner ’ s J ul y26, 2007 m ot i on fors um m arydi s pos i t i on and det erm i nat i on. AF F I RM ED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M onr oe G . M cK ay C i r cui tJ udge