In re: Donovan Williams

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: January 4, 2023
• Docket: 22-1937
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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UNPUBLISHED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Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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