22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4fa,ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW The complainant filed on February 16, 1983 a petition for review of an order filed by Chief Judge Browning on January 12, 1983. That order recited the history and nature of the underlying complaint against a district judge of this circuit. In essence, the complainant asserts that the district judge has failed to act on a petition to compel a magistrate to issue proposed findings. This, says the complainant, constitutes judicial misconduct and he requests that the district' judge be compelled to rule on that petition. In his order of dismissal of January 12, 1983, Chief Judge Browning stated: The complainant’s petition for review of that order demonstrates that he has misunderstood it. He refers to an application made in the district court on December 22,1982 for writ of mandamus. That application sought no relief from the court of appeals.' It is that court to which the complainant must go if he seeks a writ of mandamus against the district judge. The procedure is discussed in Green v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 541 F.2d 1335 , 1338-9 in which the court said: Because of the availability of a judicial remedy which has not been exhausted, misconduct procedures are premature. The petition for review is dismissed.24:T51a,

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW

The complainant filed on February 16, 1983 a petition for review of an order filed by Chief Judge Browning on January 12, 1983. That order recited the history and nature of the underlying complaint against a district judge of this circuit.

In essence, the complainant asserts that the district judge has failed to act on a petition to compel a magistrate to issue proposed findings. This, says the complainant, constitutes judicial misconduct and he requests that the district' judge be compelled to rule on that petition.

In his order of dismissal of January 12, 1983, Chief Judge Browning stated:

The complainant’s petition for review of that order demonstrates that he has misunderstood it. He refers to an application made in the district court on December 22,1982 for writ of mandamus. That application sought no relief from the court of appeals.' It is that court to which the complainant must go if he seeks a writ of mandamus against the district judge. The procedure is discussed in Green v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 541 F.2d 1335 , 1338-9 in which the court said:

Because of the availability of a judicial remedy which has not been exhausted, misconduct procedures are premature. The petition for review is dismissed.