IN RE: LAWRENCE CRAWFORD; YAHYA MUQUIT (2017)

Petitioners seek multiple forms of mandamus relief, including writs of mandamus against multiple federal judges and a state court judge. Petitioners also seek to proceed in forma pauperis and have filed a motion for change of venue. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). We have reviewed Petitioners' filings and conclude that Petitioners have not established that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting mandamus relief. To the extent Petitioners challenge the district court's rulings in their respective federal court actions, mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). And to the extent Petitioners ask that the named judges be ordered to recuse themselves from participation in their respective actions, Petitioners have not established extrajudicial bias. See In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826-27 (4th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, although we grant Petitioners' applications to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the motion for change of venue and deny mandamus relief. 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

PER CURIAM: