UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1953
In re: YAHYA MUQUIT, a/k/a Yahya Muqit; DAVID DUREN;
ANTHONY COOK; LAWRENCE CRAWFORD, a/k/a Jonah Gabriel, a/k/a
Jahjah T. Tishbite,
Petitioners.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (8:14-cv-03555-RBH; 0:16-cv-
00992-TMC-PJG)
Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016
Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yahya Muquit, David Duren, Anthony Cook, Lawrence Crawford,
Petitioners Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Petitioners seek several forms of mandamus relief,
including a writ of mandamus against United States District
Court Judge R. Bryan Harwell. Petitioners have also filed
motions to supplement their mandamus petition and for ruling of
law and recusal, as well as applications to proceed in forma
pauperis.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only
in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426
U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509,
516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available
only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought.
In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.
1988).
We have reviewed Petitioners’ filings and conclude that
Petitioners have not established that extraordinary
circumstances exist warranting mandamus relief. To the extent
Petitioners challenge the district court’s rulings in their
respective district court actions, mandamus may not be used as a
substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d
351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). And to the extent Petitioners ask
that Judge Harwell be ordered to recuse himself from their
respective district court actions, Petitioners have not
2
established extra-judicial bias. See In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818,
826-27 (4th Cir. 1987).
Accordingly, although we grant Petitioners’ applications to
proceed in forma pauperis and their motion to supplement their
mandamus petition, we deny the motion for ruling of law and
recusal, and deny mandamus relief. 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
3