In Re: Janes v.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2535
In Re: ELIZABETH HOUSE JANES,
Petitioner,
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
(CA-04-275; CR-01-231)
Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: February 14, 2005
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elizabeth House Janes, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Elizabeth House Janes petitions for writ of mandamus.
She seeks an order directing the district court to act on her
motion for recusal of Judge Raymond A. Jackson, which she alleges
she filed on or about June 6, 2004.
Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has
a clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. &
Loan Assn., 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus
is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary
circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S.
394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).
Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re
United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).
The district court has no record of receiving a motion
for recusal of Judge Jackson from Janes. Although the court
received a motion for recusal from her codefendant on May 6, 2004,
Janes did not join in the motion. Janes, therefore, lacks standing
to challenge the district court’s inaction on it.
Janes has also submitted a copy of a motion for recusal
of the Assistant United States Attorney she alleges she submitted
on June 25, 2004. The district court has no record of receiving
Janes’s motion, and Janes has not demonstrated it was properly
filed. The district court did receive a “renewed” motion for the
recusal of the Assistant United States Attorney on December 1,
- 2 -
2004. We conclude, however, that the district court has not unduly
delayed ruling on this motion.
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, 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 -