Court Opinion

ID: 9381474
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-22 21:01:22.651719+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:32.743411
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1089      Doc: 9          Filed: 03/21/2023   Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-1089

        In re: DAVID HILL,

                             Petitioner.

                                   On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
                                 (1:01-cr-00191-CMH-1; 1:04-cv-1249)

        Submitted: March 16, 2023                                         Decided: March 21, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        David Hill, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1089       Doc: 9         Filed: 03/21/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               David Hill petitions for a writ of mandamus requesting that we preclude the district

        court judge from presiding over his post-conviction proceedings. Mandamus relief is a

        drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Cheney v. U.S.

        Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795

        (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear

        right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to attain the relief [he] desires.”

        Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (cleaned up).

               We conclude that Hill is not entitled to mandamus relief. While mandamus may be

        used to seek recusal of a district court judge, see In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827

        (4th Cir. 1987), we conclude that Hill’s allegations are insufficient to warrant recusal, see

        Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 572-73 (4th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we deny Hill’s

        mandamus petition.      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.

                                                                                 PETITION DENIED

                                                      2