2014 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-24-2014

In Re: Craig Alford

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 14-1505

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2014 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re: Craig Alford" (2014). 2014 Decisions. Paper 329.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014/329
CLD-206 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-1505

___________

IN RE: CRAIG ALFORD,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(Related to Civ. No. 03-14-cv-00013)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

March 20, 2014

Before: FUENTES, JORDAN and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: March 24, 2014 )

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Pro se petitioner Craig Alford has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus

requesting that we (1) order the District Judge to recuse himself; or (2) order the District 

Judge to rule on Alford’s sundry pending motions. For the reasons set forth below, we 

will deny Alford’s petition. 

Alford filed a complaint asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the District 

Court on January 7, 2014. He has since filed a barrage of other documents, including two 

motions to appoint counsel and numerous requests for discovery. Each of these filings 
2

remains pending. On March 5, 2014, Alford filed the instant mandamus petition. He has 

also filed a motion asking us to expedite consideration of his case.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy that is granted in only extraordinary cases. In re 

Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). To demonstrate that 

mandamus is appropriate, a petitioner must establish that he or she has “no other 

adequate means” to obtain the relief requested, and that he or she has a “clear and 

indisputable” right to issuance of the writ. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir.

1996).

Alford chiefly seeks mandamus because he believes that the District Judge should 

recuse himself due to his alleged personal bias. It is true that a mandamus petition is a 

proper means of challenging a district judge’s refusal to recuse himself pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 455. See In re Sch. Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d 764, 774-75 (3d Cir. 1992). 

However, Alford has not filed a recusal motion in the District Court, and thus cannot 

make the required showing that he has “no other adequate means to attain the desired 

relief.” In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211, 223-24 (3d Cir. 2003) (denying 

mandamus on this basis when recusal motion was pending before district judge). 

Further, although mandamus may be warranted when a district court’s “undue 

delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction,” Madden, 102 F.3d at 79, this 

case does not present such a situation. At the time Alford filed his mandamus petition, 

his complaint and related filings had been pending (at most) for just two months, which 

“does not yet rise to the level of a denial of due process.” Id. (stating that four months of 
3

inaction is insufficient to warrant mandamus). We are confident that the District Court 

will rule on Alford’s filings in due course.1

Accordingly, we will deny Alford’s mandamus petition. Alford’s motion to 

expedite is denied as moot.

 

1 We note that we have recently denied another premature mandamus petition that Alford 

filed in C.A. No. 14-1296.