Court Opinion

ID: 9352367
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-05 21:00:44.081678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:01:58.976868
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1937      Doc: 25         Filed: 01/04/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1937

        In re: DONOVAN MOENELL WILLIAMS,

                            Petitioner.

                         On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus. (5:21-ct-03174-D)

        Submitted: December 6, 2022                                       Decided: January 4, 2023

        Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Donovan Moenell Williams, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1937      Doc: 25         Filed: 01/04/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Donovan Moenell Williams petitions for a writ of mandamus requesting that we

        preclude the district court judge from presiding over his civil action. We conclude that

        Williams 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 (cleaned up).

               We conclude that Williams 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 Williams’ allegations are insufficient to warrant recusal,

        see Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 572-73 (4th Cir. 2011).

               Accordingly, we deny Williams’ petition and supplemental petition for a writ of

        mandamus. We also deny Williams’ motion for extension of the deadline, a preliminary

        injunction, and appointment of counsel and his motion for help. 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.

                                                                              PETITIONS DENIED

                                                       2