NOT PRECEDENTIA L

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR T HE THI RD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 2 2

- 1 8 5 8

__________

JOHN E. REARDON

, Appellant

v.

GOVER NOR PHIL MURPHY; ATTORNEY GENERAL GURBIR S. GREWAL;

B. SUE FULTON; JUDGE JOHN MCFEELEY; JUDGE ROBER T ZANE;

JUDGE GEORGE SIN GLEY; JUDGE JOHN MORRELLI; KRISDEN MCCRINK;

J UDGE RYAN TRABOSH; PROSECUTOR ANDREW VIOLA; PROSECUTOR

ROBERT GLEANER; PROSECUTOR STEVEN PETERSON; PROSECUTOR

DANIEL LONG; PROSECUTOR MICHAEL JOYCE; PROSECUTOR MATHEW

GINDELLE; SENATOR DA WN MARIE ADDIEGO; SENATO R JAMES BEACH;

SENATOR FRED MADDEN; ASSEMBLYW OMAN MARIA GREGG; ASSEMBLYMAN

JOE HOWARTH; PROSECUTOR LAWRENCE LUONGO; JUDGE ZONIES;

PRO SECUTOR RICHARD DEMICHELE; PAUL DOUGHERTY, Prosecutor

____________________________________

On App eal from the United Stat es District Court

for the District of N e w J e r s e y (D.C. Civil Action No. 1 : 1 8

- c v

- 1 1 3 7 2 )

District Judge: Ho norable R o b e r t B

. K u g l e r

__ __________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L

. A

. R

. 34.1(a)

A u g u s t 1 8

, 2 0 2 2

Before: G R E E N A W A Y

, J R

. , P O R T E R a n d N Y G A A R D

, Circuit Judges

(Opinion fi led : August 30, 2022 )

___________2 OPINION *

___________

PER CURIAM

J o h n E

. R e a r d o n

, p r o c e e d i n g p r o s e

, a p p e a l s a n o r d e r o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t

C o u r t f o r the D i s t r i c t o f N e w J e r s e y d e n y i n g h i s r e q u e s t f o r l e a v e t o f i l e a m o t i o n f o r

r e c u s a l a n d d i s m i s s i n g t h e r e c u s a l m o t i o n i t s e l f

. F o r t h e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s

, w e w i l l

a f f

i r m

.

R e a r d o n m o v e d f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o l l o w i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s d i s m i s s a l o f a n

a c t i o n i n w h i c h h e s o u g h t t o h a v e v a r i o u s t r a f f

i c laws and r e g u l a t i o n s d e e m e d

u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

. H e a l s o f i l e d a m o t i o n s e e k i n g t h e r e c u s a l o f J u d g e K u g l e r

. T he

D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d t h e r e q u e s t s f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n a n d r e c u s a l

, a n d i m p o s e d a f i l i n g

i n

j u n c t i o n b e c a u s e o f R e a r d o n ’ s “ vexa tiou s and abusive history of filing

“ frivolous motions, meritless complaints, an d procedurally deficient actions” for more

than thre e decad e s

, see Reardon v. Murphy , Civil No. 18

- 11372, 2019 WL 4727940, at

*4 (D.N.J. Oct. 21, 2019)

... . ” ( E C F 1 3 0

. ) T h e o r d e r p r o h i b i t e d R e a r d o n “ f r o m f i l i n g

a n y f u t u r e m o t i o n s i n t h i s o r a n y o t h e r c a s e w i t h o u t l e a v e o f the C o u r t

... . ” ( I d

. )

R e a r d o n d i d n o t a p p e a l

.

B u t h e c o n t i n u e d t o f i l e l e t t e r s a n d m o t i o n s i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

. A m o n g t h o s e

s u b m i s s i o n s w a s a l e t t e r s e e k i n g l e a v e t o f i l e a n o t h e r m o t i o n f o r r e c u s a l ( E C F 1 6 6 )

, a s

w e l l a s a n e w r e c u s a l m o t i o n i t s e l f

. ( E C F 1 6 8

. ) T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d t h e r e q u e s t f o r

* This disposition i s not an opinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not

co nstitute binding precedent.3 l e a v e t o f i l e a n d d i s m i s s e d t h e m o t i o n f o r r e c u s a l

. ( E C F 1 7 3

. ) I t c o n c l u d e d t h a t R e a r d o n

“ h a s c o n t i n u a l l y f l o u t e d t h i s C o u r t ’ s [ f i l i n g injunction ] b y f i l i n g a motion w i t h o u t l e a v e

o f t he C o u r t a n d b y f i l i n g m u l t i p l e l e t t e r s t h a t a r e l a r g e l y f r i v o l o u s a n d

i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e [

. ] ” ( I d

. a t 2

. ) T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a l s o d e t e r m i n e d t h a t R e a r d o n ’ s

“ g e n e r a l a n d c o n c l u s o r y a l l e g a t i o n s o f b i a s [

, ] [ w h i c h ]

... a p p e a r t o b e l a r g e l y p r e d i c a t e d

o n t h i s C o u r t ’ s a d v e r s e j u d i c i a l r u l i n g s [

, ]

... d o n o t p r e s e n t a v a l i d b a s i s f o r r e c u s a l u n d e r

2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 4 4 o r 4 5 5 [

. ] ” ( I d

. ) R e a r d o n t i m e l y a p p e a l e d

. 1 ( E C F 1 7 4

. )

W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 9 1

, and may affirm on any basis

supported by the rec o rd. See Murray v. Bledsoe , 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per

curiam)

.

S e t t i n g a s i d e t h e p r o p r i e t y o f the D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f R e a r d o n ’ s m o t i o n f o r

l e a v e t o f i l e t h e r e c u s a l m o t i o n

, w e n e v e r t h e l e s s c o n c l u d e that the D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t

a

b u s e its d i s c r e t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t R e a r d o n ’ s r e c u s a l m o t i o n l a c k e d m e r i t

. Under 2 8

U.S.C. § 144, a judge must recuse if a party files a “sufficient affidavit” establishing t hat

the judge has a personal bias or prejudice against the party seeking recusa l , or in favor of

the adverse party. 28 U.S.C. § 144; see also Jones v. Pitts burgh N at’ l Corp. , 899 F.2d

1350, 1356 (3d Cir. 1990). A ju dge must also recuse where the judge’ s impa rtiality

“might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). A party se e king recusal need not

demonstrate that the judge is actually biased, but rath er that he would appear to be biased

1 Rear don ’ s opening brief m ain ly addresses th e D istrict Court ’ s dismissal of his

comp l ai nt and its imposition of the filing inju nction. T hose orders were entered on

Se ptember 27, 2019, and May 1, 2020, respectively. Rear don ’ s notice of appeal , filed on

May 3, 20 22, is thus untimel y as t o those orde rs and we lack juri sdiction to review th em.4 to “a reasonable person, with knowledge of all the facts.” Un ited States v. Wecht , 484

F.3d 194, 213 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Kensingto n Int’l Ltd.

, 353 F.3d 211, 220 (3d

Cir. 2003)).

I n t h e r e c u s a l m o t i o n

, R e a r d o n g e n e r a l l y a l l e g e d t h a t J u d g e K u g l e r “ ignor [ e d ] a l l

the l a w c i t e d b y t h e p l a i n t i f f t h a t i s i n h i s f a v o r a n d

... r e p e a t e d l y r u l [ e d ] i n f a v o r o f the

d e f e n d a n t s w h e n t h e y a r e n o t e n t i t l e d t o t h e r e l i e f t h a t t h e y s o u g h t

. ” ( E C F 1 6 8

, a t 9

. ) H e

a l s o l i s t e d n u m e r o u s e x a m p l e s o f r u l i n g s t h a t w e r e a l l e g e d l y m a d e a s t h e r e s u l t o f J u d g e

K

u g l e r ’ s b i a s

. ( I d

. a t 9

- 1 4

. ) B u t a d v e r s e r u l i n g s

, without m o r e

, d o n o t establish t h a t

J u d g e K u g l e r h a d a p e r s o n a l b i a s o r p r e j u d i c e a g a i n s t R e a r d o n

, n o r d o t h e y p r o v i d e a

b a s i s u p o n w h i c h t o r e a s o n a b l y q u e s t i o n J u d g e K u g l e r ’ s impartiality

. S e e Se curacomm

Consulting, Inc. v. Se cura com Inc. , 224 F.3d 273, 278 (3d Cir. 2000) ; Liteky v. United

States , 510 U.S . 540, 5 5 5 (1994) (adverse rulings alone generally do not const itute a

sufficient ba sis for holding that a ju dge’s impartiality is in doubt). A c c o r d i n g l y

, we

conclude that t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t abuse i t s discretion in r e j e c t i n g R e a r d o n ’ s r e c u s a l

m o t i o n

.

F or the foreg oing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court

.

S e e F e d

. R

. A p p

. P

. 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ; Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S . 205, 207

- 09 (2007)

.