Whether a federal district court judge must recuse himself under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) when a party alleges potential judicial bias or prejudice in a civil proceeding

No question identified. : basis for the judicial disqualification motion, the statutory grounds for judicial disqualification are made of no effect when analyzed based on the suitability of mandamus, the collateral order doctrine, and certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) as devices to gain immediate appellate review, if the judge's affirmative duty to recuse himself was triggered but not a factor or appropriately weighed in the decision. Petitioner seeks an extension of time to file her Writ of Certiorari because financial difficulties have precluded her from securing counsel, (attached). Petitioner seeks the extension so that she has sufficient time to fully evaluate the merits of this matter and to file her Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. Respectfully submitted, Ubu yk (4 /s/ Angela W. DeBose yy : Angela W. DeBose 1107 W. Kirby Street Tampa, FL 33604 Telephone: (813) 230-3023 E-Mail: awdebose@aol.com Petitioner October 30, 2023 Certificate of Service T hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been filed via Certified Mail delivery service to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, for filing via the Supreme Court’s electronic filing system. A copy of the foregoing has been served via certified mail . 2 delivery to: UNITED STATES MIDDLE DISTRICT COURT OF FLORIDA, TAMPA DIVISION, C/O STEVEN D. MERRYDAY Chambers 1530 Sam M._ Gibbons United States Courthouse 801 North Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 38602 Notice to all counsels/parties of record. ), Flor. /si Angela W. DeBose Angela W. DeBose USCA11 Case: 23-10961 Document: 15-2 Date Filed: 09/22/2023 Page: 1 of 5 In the United States Court of Appeals Hor the Eleventh Circuit No. 23-10961 In re: ANGELA W. DEBOSE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. Before LUCK AND ABUDU, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT: USCA11 Case: 23-10961 Document: 15-2 Date Filed: 09/22/2023 Page: 2 of 5 2 Order of the Court 23-10961 Angela DeBose, proceeding pro se, petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition, arising out of a post-judgment motion seeking to disqualify a judge that she filed in the US. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. In her mandamus petition, DeBose alleges various disqualifying events and actions by the presiding judge in her civil case, the final judgment of which is currently on appeal. She requests an order of mandamus or prohibition either (1) granting her petition and directing the judge to recuse himself or, alternatively, (2) vacating the order denying her disqualification motion and ordering expedited discovery on the motion so it can be considered on an adequately developed evidentiary record. DeBose also seeks judicial notice of two affidavits she filed in the district court after her disqualification motion was denied. Writs of prohibition and mandamus, both authorized under 28 US.C. § 1651, are “two sides of the same coin with interchangeable standards.” United States v. Pleau, 680 F.3d 1, 4, (1st Cir. 2012) (en banc) (persuasive authority). They are available only in drastic situations when no other adequate means are available to remedy a clear usurpation of power or abuse of discretion. United States v. Shalhoub, 855 E.3d 1255, 1259 (11th Cir. 2017); Jackson v, Motel 6 Multipurpose, Inc., 130 R3d 999, 1004 (11th Cir. 1997) (quotation marks omitted). The petitioner has the burden of showing that she has no other avenue of relief and that her right to relief is clear and indisputable. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989); see also In re Wainwright, 678 F.2d 951, 953 (11th Cir. 1982) (applying the same standard to writs of prohibition.). These writs may not USCA11 Case: 23-10961 Document: 15-2 Date Filed: 09/22/2023 Page: 30f5 23-10961 Order of the Court 3 be used as a substitute for appeal or to control decisions of the district court in discretionary matters. Jackson, 130 F.3d at 1004; In re Wainwright, 678 2d at 953.