In re: Jason Kokinda ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2130 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/29/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-2130
In re: JASON STEVEN KOKINDA,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. (2:21-cr-00020-TSK-MJA-1)
Submitted: November 17, 2023 Decided: December 29, 2023
Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jason Steven Kokinda, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2130 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/29/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Jason Steven Kokinda petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing
the recusal of the district court judge and magistrate judge and an order directing the United
States Marshal Service to release a laptop computer to him. We conclude that Kokinda 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 (alteration and internal
quotation marks omitted).
To the extent Kokinda seeks an order directing the release of the laptop to him, this
relief is not available by way of mandamus. Further, while mandamus may be used to seek
recusal of a district court judge or magistrate judge, see In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827
(4th Cir. 1987), Kokinda’s conclusory allegations are insufficient to warrant recusal. See
Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 572–74 (4th Cir. 2011).
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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2