Opinion
21-3100
06-28-2021
In re: GANIYU AYINLA JAIYEOLA, Petitioner.
D.C. No. 2:20-CV-02068-HLT-JPO, (D. Kan.)
Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, HARTZ, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Ganiyu Ayinla Jaiyeola is currently a plaintiff in a civil rights lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. He has filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, asking us to: (1) order the recusal of District Judge Holly L. Teeter and Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara; (2) vacate Judge O'Hara's order for Jaiyeola to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for his abusive litigation behavior; and (3) order the appointment of a Special Master. Jaiyeola also requests an emergency stay of all district court proceedings pending the resolution of his petition. We deny the petition and deny his motion for stay as moot.
First, we hold that Jaiyeola is not entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering the recusal of the judges. Mandamus is an appropriate vehicle to seek review of the district court's denial of a recusal motion. See Nichols v. Alley, 71 F.3d 347, 350 (10th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). But parties presenting the issue of recusal by way of a mandamus petition must demonstrate (1) "a clear abuse of discretion, or conduct by the district court amounting to a usurpation of judicial authority," and (2) that "they lack adequate alternative means to obtain the relief they seek." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Jaiyeola's petition fails to meet this standard. In addition, the Supreme Court has explained that "bias or prejudice" under 28 U.S.C. § 455 "connote[s] a favorable or unfavorable disposition or opinion that is somehow wrongful or inappropriate, either because it is undeserved, or because it rests upon knowledge that the subject ought not to possess." Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 550 (1994). Nothing in Jaiyeola's petition or in the relevant portions of the district court record establishes the judges in this case have acted in a way that is "wrongful or inappropriate" as defined by Liteky.
Second, Jaiyeola is not entitled to a writ of mandamus vacating the magistrate judge's show cause order or appointing a special master. In order to obtain this relief, he must show "[f]irst . . . [that he has] no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires. Second, [he] must demonstrate that his right to the writ is clear and indisputable. [Third], the issuing court, in the exercise of its discretion, must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances." In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 568 F.3d 1180, 1187 (10th Cir. 2009) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Jaiyeola's petition does not meet this high standard for mandamus relief.
We deny Jaiyeola's request for an emergency stay as moot because the district court has already held a hearing on the order to show cause and issued its ruling.