In re: Jason Kokinda

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit December 29, 2023

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2130 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/29/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

No. 23-2130

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. (2:21-cr-00020-TSK-MJA-1)

Submitted: November 17, 2023 Decided: December 29, 2023

Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jason Steven Kokinda, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-2130 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/29/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

Jason Steven Kokinda petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing

the recusal of the district court judge and magistrate judge and an order directing the United

States Marshal Service to release a laptop computer to him. We conclude that Kokinda is

not entitled to mandamus relief.

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,

(4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when

the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to

attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown,

(alteration and internal

quotation marks omitted).

To the extent Kokinda seeks an order directing the release of the laptop to him, this

relief is not available by way of mandamus. Further, while mandamus may be used to seek

recusal of a district court judge or magistrate judge, see In re Beard,

(4th Cir. 1987), Kokinda’s conclusory allegations are insufficient to warrant recusal. See

Belue v. Leventhal,

, 572–74 (4th Cir. 2011).

Accordingly, 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.