OPINION

Arthur D’Amario III has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, asking for the following relief: (1) “For the forced recu-sal of Judge Paul S. Diamond from U.S. v. D’Amario, No. CR 6-112-PSD (D/NJ), due to bias, judicial fraud and criminality”; (2) “For the release of Petitioner from a false imprisonment”; and (3) “That this Court place Judge Diamond under arrest and subject him to a comprehensive inpatient mental evaluation.” Because D’Amario’s requests are either frivolous or not properly brought in a petition for a writ of mandamus, we will deny the petition.

As to his first request, while mandamus is available to review a district court’s refusal to recuse pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), see Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc., 10 F.3d 155, 163 (3d Cir. 1993), D’Amario’s request is baseless. We see nothing in the record that would give us reason to question the District Court’s impartiality. As to his second, mandamus is not a proper means for seeking release from imprisonment, as mandamus cannot serve as a substitute for an appeal. See Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 77 (3d Cir. 1996). Indeed, D’Amario’s appeal from the revocation of his supervised release is currently pending. See C.A. No. 13-3515. Finally, D’Amario’s third request, which is in any event frivolous, is not properly brought in a petition for a writ of mandamus. See In re McBryde, 117 F.3d 208, 220 n. 7 (5th Cir. 1997). 1

For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.