In Re: Ronsdorf v. , 53 F. App'x 692 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-2103
In Re: ALFRED RONSDORF,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-95-2729-JFM)
Submitted: December 11, 2002 Decided: January 3, 2003
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alfred Ronsdorf, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Alfred Ronsdorf has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
alleging bias on the part of the district judge and seeking an
order directing payment of funds in the district court’s registry
to him. The district court denied Ronsdorf’s multiple motions for
disbursement of the funds after previously dismissing Ronsdorf’s
complaint with prejudice based on his repeated failure to follow
court orders. We affirmed that dismissal. Ronsdorf v. Chase
Manhattan Bank, No. 00-2299 (4th Cir. Mar. 13, 2001) (unpublished).
Thus, the relief Ronsdorf seeks has been previously denied by both
the district court and this court.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be granted in
those extraordinary situations when no other remedy is available.
In re: Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). It is not a
substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958,
960 (4th Cir. 1979). Ronsdorf has utterly failed to demonstrate
such extraordinary circumstances. Despite being given numerous
opportunities by the district court, Ronsdorf never produced proof,
much less the “undisputed proof” he asserts in his petition, that
he is entitled to the funds as a matter of law. Moreover, his
repeated failure to comply with the orders of the district court,
in combination with his inflammatory filings, further undermine his
petition. To the extent Ronsdorf contends the district court is
biased, he has not demonstrated extrajudicial bias warranting
2
recusal. Beard, 811 F.2d at 827. 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 the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3