Whether a district court violates a prisoner's constitutional right of access to courts by enforcing filing restrictions that prevent him from appealing his criminal conviction and pursuing habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

No question identified. : SMUATH §$ TL YEARS Old with MANY. SeRious AiMents ANd PHYSICAL. _disabilTies Wwhich.slows ANd delays his Ability To wRiTe THIS eXTeNSIVE Appeal. He Is A SeRwous. Failing HEART. CONDITION. CEXHIBITS 10,11, 12) Atid damaged. eyesight smpaiRMeNtT. ANd 80 Pat. DeAF ( EXHIBITSSIO;U, 12,13) SmiTH Submitted overushelming IRReFUTAbIe Police Issued evidence __OF AGtual LvNocentce (IN HIS LOWER COURT HABPAS CORPUS CASE IN CASS Ht Y ~ QV ~ 00934. US,DIST. COURT) NiD.OHL0) SCe Doe. h.5 exhibits), SmiTH did MoT. __ Commit. He ARSON CRunes As. Police REPORTS VERIFY Mi EXHIGITS; __bATe MAiLed | SubmiTeds ___ Submitted by 5 — JUNG ep 209B gL Mal Bet __DARRYL SMITH A Copy OFTHIS: MOTION: WAS -FORWARdEed by UsS,MAtl To THE U.S, DISTRICT. _ COURT _(N.D,OHI0). 801 SUPERIOR AVE. Cleveland, OHIO. 44113-1830... Case: 22-3665 Document: 13-1 Filed: 10/05/2022 Page: 1 (1 of 4) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540 Deborah S. Hunt POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE Tel. (513) 564-7000 Clerk CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202-3988 Filed: October 05, 2022 Mr. Darry! Smith Mansfield Correctional Institution P.O. Box 788 Mansfield, OH 44901 Re: Case No. 22-3665, Inre: Darryl Smith Originating Case No. : 1:21-cv-00934 Dear Mr. Smith, The Court issued the enclosed Order today in this case. Judgment to follow. Sincerely yours, s/Roy G. Ford Case Manager Direct Dial No. 513-564-7016 ce: Ms. Sandy Opacich Enclosure No mandate to issue Case: 22-3665 Document: 13-2 Filed: 10/05/2022 Page: 1 (2 of 4) No. 22Oct 5, 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS , FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT DEBORAH §S. HUNT, Clerk Inre: DARRYL SMITH, ) ) ORDER Petitioner. ) Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; GUY and COLE, Circuit Judges. Darryl Smith, an Ohio prisoner, petitions for a writ of mandamus and asks that we compel the district court to vacate its order enforcing filing restrictions, provide him with a copy of the Warden’s return of writ, and order the recusal of the magistrate judge. Further, he suggests that the district court has unreasonably delayed adjudicating his habeas petition. Smith also thrice moves to proceed in forma pauperis. Mandamus “is a drastic and extraordinary remedy reserved for really extraordinary causes.” Cheney y. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[T]hree conditions must be satisfied before it may issue.” Id. First, the petitioner must have no other adequate remedy to obtain the relief he seeks. Id. Second, the right to the writ must be “clear and indisputable.” Jd. at 381 (citation omitted). Finally, even if these prerequisites have been met, issuance of the writ must be “appropriate under the circumstances.” Jd. Smith first challenges the enforcement of the filing restrictions imposed against him in Smith y. Pinkney, No. 1:18-cv-00163 (N.D. Ohiv 2018). Sinith, however, did not appeal that order. His failure to pursue his available remedies does not render those remedies inadequate. Case: 22-3665 Document: 13-2 Filed: 10/05/2022 Page: 2 No. 22-3665 -2Cf. Rimmer v. Holder, 700 F.3d 246, 262 (6th Cir. 2012) (‘Adequacy does not depend on a party’s ability to prevail on the merits.”). And, to the extent he challenges the filing restrictions as applied in his present case, he was granted leave to file his habeas petition and has not yet been denied leave to file a pleading in that case. Smith also seeks the magistrate judge’s recusal. We may consider a mandamus petition following the denial of a motion to recuse. In re Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 919 F.2d 1136, 1143 (6th Cir. 1990) (en banc). But, other than mere speculation, Smith has not pointed to any antagonism supporting his claims of bias or improper motive and, generally, prejudice may not be established by challenging the correctness of a judicial ruling, Williams y. Anderson, 460 F.3d 789, 815 (6th Cir. 2006). Smith also asks that we compel the district court to send him a copy of the