Court Opinion

ID: 9914376
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-30 21:01:17.203652+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:11:53.582401
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2130      Doc: 9         Filed: 12/29/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-2130

        In re: JASON STEVEN KOKINDA,

                            Petitioner.

        On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Northern
        District of West Virginia, at Elkins. (2:21-cr-00020-TSK-MJA-1)

        Submitted: November 17, 2023                                Decided: December 29, 2023

        Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jason Steven Kokinda, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2130      Doc: 9          Filed: 12/29/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Jason Steven Kokinda petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing

        the recusal of the district court judge and magistrate judge and an order directing the United

        States Marshal Service to release a laptop computer to him. We conclude that Kokinda is

        not entitled to mandamus relief.

               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 (alteration and internal

        quotation marks omitted).

               To the extent Kokinda seeks an order directing the release of the laptop to him, this

        relief is not available by way of mandamus. Further, while mandamus may be used to seek

        recusal of a district court judge or magistrate judge, see In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827

        (4th Cir. 1987), Kokinda’s conclusory allegations are insufficient to warrant recusal. See

        Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 572–74 (4th Cir. 2011).

               Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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