IN RE: Frederick H. BANKS (2019)

OPINION *

Charged with interstate stalking, 18 U.S.C. § 2261(a)(2), aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) and other crimes, Frederick Banks has been awaiting trial in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Despite being represented by counsel, Banks has filed with the District Court innumerable pro se motions and miscellaneous writings. He has also filed with this Court several pro se petitions for a writ of mandamus. See CA Nos. 19-1263; 18-3687; 18-3317; 18-3295; 18-1129; 18-1014; and 17-3754. Currently before the Court is Banks’s latest mandamus petition, which seeks disqualification of the District Judge and the prosecuting United States Attorney based on scattershot allegations of bias.

Banks has not presented even an arguable basis for mandamus relief, let alone the required showing that his right to such relief is “clear and indisputable.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190, 130 S.Ct. 705, 175 L.Ed.2d 657 (2010) (per curiam); see also SecuraComm Consulting, Inc. v. Securacom Inc., 224 F.3d 273, 278 (3d Cir. 2000) (noting the oft-stated proposition “that a party’s displeasure with legal rulings does not form an adequate basis for recusal”). Accordingly, his petition will be denied.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   Banks’s serial request that this Court “discharge[ ]” him from confinement and “terminate” his criminal case is denied. There is no basis for Banks to receive such relief at this time.

PER CURIAM