In re: Alvin Truesdale

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1077
In re: ALVIN B. TRUESDALE,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:92-cr-00034-RJC-1)
Submitted: August 24, 2021 Decided: August 26, 2021
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alvin Bernard Truesdale, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alvin B. Truesdale filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and a supplement to the
petition alleging that the district court has unduly delated acting on a number of motions
he filed in the district court. He also seeks the recusal of the district court judge, an
explanation for the reassignment of his case, and the assignment of his case to an impartial
judge. We conclude that Truesdale is not entitled to mandamus relief.
To the extent that Truesdale alleges a delay by the district court in ruling on motions
in his case, our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court has since
denied relief on the subject motions. Accordingly, this portion of Truesdale’s mandamus
petition is denied as moot.
Turning to Truesdale’s demand for recusal, “[a] district judge’s refusal to disqualify
himself can be reviewed in this circuit by way of a petition for a writ of mandamus.” In re
Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987). A federal judge must recuse himself if “he has
served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser
or material witness concerning the proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(3). Truesdale has not
established that the district court judge participated in his prosecution. We therefore
conclude that mandamus relief is not warranted on this claim. See United States v.
Norwood, 854 F.3d 469, 471-472 (8th Cir. 2017).
With respect to Truesdale’s remaining claims, it is well-established that 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). Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to
2
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).
Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503
F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, we deny the petition and supplemental petition for a writ of
mandamus. We also deny Truesdale’s motions to certify questions to this court, to compel
a response by the district court, to hold his notice of appeal in abeyance, for appointment
of counsel, for the production of documents and court records, and for a hearing on his
motion to compel. 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