Opinion
23-1089
03-21-2023
In re: DAVID HILL, Petitioner.
David Hill, Petitioner Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: March 16, 2023
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:01-cr-00191-CMH-1; 1:04-cv-1249)
David Hill, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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.