`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOT PRECEDENTIAL
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
`___________
`
`No. 13-2384
`___________
`
`IN RE: THOMAS PAUL RICHARD, SR.,
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`____________________________________
`
`On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
`United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
`(Related to D.C. Civil No. 2-07-cv-00016)
`____________________________________
`
`Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
`July 18, 2013
`
`Before: AMBRO, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
`
`(Opinion filed July 31, 2013)
`_________
`
`OPINION
`_________
`
`
`PER CURIAM
`
`
`
`Petitioner Thomas Richard, a state prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of
`
`mandamus requesting that we 1) compel the Magistrate Judge to recuse himself and 2)
`
`reverse the denial of his motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
`
`
`
`We will issue a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) only in
`
`“extraordinary circumstances.” See Hahnemann Univ. Hosp. v. Edgar, 74 F.3d 456, 461
`
`(3d Cir. 1996). A petitioner seeking mandamus must show that (1) no other adequate
`
`
`
`means exist to attain the desired relief, (2) his right to issuance of the writ is clear and
`
`indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances of his case. Cheney
`
`v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004); In re Pressman-Gutman Co., 459 F.3d
`
`383, 399 (3d Cir. 2006). “Given its drastic nature, a writ of mandamus should not be
`
`issued where relief may be obtained through an ordinary appeal.” Hahnemann, 74 F.3d
`
`at 461; see also Pressman-Gutman, 459 F.3d at 398 (holding mandamus is not a substitute
`
`for appeal). Even when these elements are met, the decision to issue a writ of mandamus
`
`is “largely discretionary.” Hahnemann, 74 F.3d at 461.
`
`
`
` The Magistrate Judge denied Richard’s 60(b) motion as moot. Denial of a motion
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) is a final, appealable order. See, e.g., Pridgen v.
`
`Shannon, 380 F.3d 721, 725 (3d Cir. 2004). Because an ordinary appeal is available, we
`
`will deny the petition for mandamus to the extent it is an attempt to seek review of the
`
`District Court’s order. See United States v. Higdon, 638 F.3d 233, 245 (3d Cir. 2011)
`
`(holding power for appellate courts to issue mandamus is limited to “exceptional cases
`
`where the traditional bases for jurisdiction do not apply.”) (quoting In re Pasquariello, 16
`
`F.3d 525, 528 (3d Cir. 1994)).
`
`
`
`However, mandamus is an appropriate vehicle to challenge the denial of a motion
`
`to recuse under 28 U.S.C. § 455. See In re Sch. Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d 764, 777-78
`
`(3d Cir. 1992). Richard’s assertion of bias is solely on the basis that the Magistrate Judge
`
`has ruled against him in the past. That is insufficient to establish that the Magistrate
`
`Judge’s partiality might reasonably be questioned within the meaning of § 455. Liteky v.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute
`
`a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”). Here, the record only shows that the
`
`Magistrate Judge denied Richard’s petition for writ of habeas corpus five years ago, and
`
`Richard has pointed to no extrajudicial source of bias. See United States v. Bertoli, 40
`
`F.3d 1384, 1412 (3d Cir. 1994). We find no evidence in the record of a “deep seated or
`
`high degree of favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.”
`
`United States v. Wecht, 484 F.3d 194, 213 (3d Cir. 2007) (citation and internal quotation
`
`marks omitted).
`
`Accordingly, we will deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
`
`3
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
