E L D

- 0 1 5

- E NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 20

- 1116

___________

In re: ROCMON L. SANDERS,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On Petition for Writ of M andamus from th e

United States District Court for the E a s t e r n District of Pennsylvania

( Related to E .D. Pa. C r i m . No. 2 : 18

- cr

- 00431

- 001 )

________ ________ __________ ______ ____

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

J a n u a r y 2 9

, 2 0 2 0

Before: G R E E N A W A Y

, J R

. , P H I P P S

, a n d F U E N T E S

, Circu it Judges

(Opinion fi led : January 31, 2020 )

_________

OPI NION *

_________

PER CURIAM

P r o s e p e t i t i o n e r R o c m o n S a n d e r s s e e k s a w r i t o f m a n d a m u s

. B e c a u s e S a n d e r s

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

, w e w i l l d e n y h i s

p e t i t i o n

.

I n O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

, S a n d e r s w a s i n d i c t e d f o r t h e m a n u f a c t u r e of and attempted

* T h is disposition is n ot an opinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not

constitute binding preceden t.2 m a n u f a c t u r e of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S .C. § 225 1 (a) and (e). S a n d e r s

h a s b e e n r e p r e s e n t i n g h i m s e l f i n h i s c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s s i n c e J u l y 2 0 1 9

, w i t h s t a n d

- b y

c o u n s e l a v a i l a b l e

. H e h a s f i l e d d o z e n s o f m o t i o n s a n d r e q u e s t s w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n

t h a t t i m e

. H e h a s a l s o u n s u c c e s s f u l l y s o u g h t r e c u s a l u n d e r 28 U.S.C. § § 144 a n d 455 o f

t h e D i s t r i c t J u d g e pres i d i n g o v e r h i s c a s e

. S a n d e r s i s p r e s e n t l y a w a i t i n g t r i a l

, w h i c h i s

s c h e d u l e d t o b e g i n o n F e b r u a r y 3

, 2 0 2 0

.

S a n d e r s h a s f i l e d a m a n d a m u s p e t i t i o n i n t h i s C o u r t s e e k i n g v a r i o u s f o r m s o f r e l i e f

p r i o r t o t h e s t a r t o f h i s t r i a l

. S p e c i f i c a l l y

, h e s e e k s r e c u s a l o f t h e D i s t r i c t J u d g e a n d

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

, i n c l u d i n g d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g

d i s c o v e r y

, c o n t i n u a n c e s

, a n d h i s s t a n d

- b y c o u n s e l

.

A writ of mandamus is a “drastic remedy” that may be granted only in

“extraordin ary circumstances i n response to an act amounting to a judicial u surpation of

powe r.” In re Diet Drugs Prod s . Liab. Litig. , 418 F.3d 37 2, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). “ In

particular, the use of mandamus in criminal cases is both extraordinary and exceptional. ”

United States v. Fa rnsworth , 456 F.3d 394, 401 (3d Cir. 2006) ( i n t e r n a l quotation marks

a n d c i t a t i o n omitted). “Before a writ of mandamus may issue, a party must establish that

(1) no other adequat e means [e xist] to attain the relief he desires, (2) the p arty’s right to

iss uance of the writ is clear and indis putable, a nd (3) the writ i s appr opriate under the

circumstances.” See Hollingsworth v. Perry , 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam)

(in t ernal quotation marks a n d c i t a t i o n omitted).3 S a n d e r s f i r s t seek s the recusal of the Distri ct Judge

. M andamus relief is not

avai lable b a s e d o n t h e r e f u s a l o f t h e D i s t r i c t J u d g e t o r e c u s e under 28 U.S.C. § 144

. S e e

In re Sch

. Asbestos Litig

. , 977 F.2d 764, 774

- 76 (3d Cir. 1992)

. I n c o n t r a s t

,

“ [ m ] andamus is a proper m eans for this court to review a district court judge ’ s refusal to

recuse from a ca se pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), where the judge ’ s impartiality might

reaso nably be questioned. ” Alexander v. Pri merica Holdings, Inc

. , 10 F.3d 155, 163 (3d

Cir. 1993) ; s e e 28 U.S.C. § 455 (a). To determine whether m a n d a m u s r e l i e f i s w a r r a n t e d

,

we revie w a d i s t r i c t j u d g e ’ s decision not to recuse u n d e r § 455 (a) for abuse of discretion.

See In re Kensington Int’l Ltd. , 368 F.3d 289, 301 (3 d Cir. 2004).

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

b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t J u d g e i s c o l l u d i n g w i t h t h e p r o s e c u t o r a n d h i s s t a n d

- b y c o u n s e l

a g a i n s t h i m

, b a s e d o n f a v o r a b l e d e c i s i o n s s h e h a s m a d e i n f a v o r o f t h e G o v e r n m e n t a n d

h i s d i s a g r e e m e n t w i t h r u l i n g s s h e h a s m a d e a g a i n s t h i m

. H e a l s o b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e

D i s t r i c t J u d g e i s p r e j u d i c e d a g a i n s t h i m b e c a u s e s h e h a s r e a d e m a i l s h e h a s s e n t t h a t

c r i t i c i z e d h e r

, a n d a s s e r t s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t J u d g e h a s s p o k e n t o h i m d i s r e s p e c t f u l l y a t

v a r i o u s h e a r i n g s

. F i n a l l y

, h e b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t J u d g e i s i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h t h e

d o c k e t i n g o f h i s f i l i n g s

. H o w e v e r

, S a n d e r s ’ dissatisfaction with unfavorable de cisions

does not necessitate t he D i s t r i c t J u d g e ’ s recusal. S e e Litek y v. United States , 510 U .S.

540, 55 5 (1994) ( “[J] udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a val id basis for a bi as

or partiality motion .” )

. F u r t h e r

, a s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e x p l a i n e d

, S a n d e r s ’ u n s u p p o r t e d

c o n j e c t u r e t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t J u d g e i s colludin g w i t h t h e p r o s e c u t i o n a n d h i s s t a n d

- b y4 c o u n s e l a g a i n s t h i m

, o r i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h t h e d o c k e t i n g o f h i s f i l i n g s

, d o e s n o t r e q u i r e t h e

r e c u s a l o f t h e D i s t r i c t J u d g e

. See In re United States , 666 F.2d 690, 694 (1st Cir. 1981)

(noting tha t a judge’s recusal is not required on the basis of “ u n s u p p o r t e d ” o r “ highly

tenuous speculatio n”). T h u s

, S a n d e r s h a s n o t d e m o n s t r a t e d that t h e D i s t r i c t J u d g e ’ s

impartiality might reasonably be questioned such that h e ha s a clear and indisputable

right to recusal u nd er § 455(a).

N e x t

, S a n d e r s m a y s e e k r e l i e f f r o m t h e r e m a i n i n g r u l i n g s t h a t h e s e e k s t o

c h a l l e n g e i n a d i r e c t c r i m i n a l a p p e a l o r o n c o l l a t e r a l r e v i e w

, i f n e c e s s a r y

. See In re

Kens ington Int’l Ltd. , 353 F.3d 211, 219 ( 3d Cir. 2003) ( “ [M]andamus must not be used

as a

. . . substitute for appeal

. ” ) ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d )

. T o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

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

, “ matters of docket control

and conduct of discovery are c ommitted to the sound discr etion of the district court .” In

re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig. , 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982). T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s

r e s p o n s i v e l y h a n d l e d S a n d e r s ’ f i l i n g s u n t i l t h i s p o i n t a n d h a s h e l d m u l t i p l e h e a r i n g s

l e a d i n g u p t o S a n d e r s ’ t r i a l r e g a r d i n g h i s r e q u e s t s

. W e a r e c o n f i d e n t t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t w i l l a d d r e s s S a n d e r s ’ r e m a i n i n g p e n d i n g m o t i o n s i n d u e t i m e

.

A c c o r d i n g l y

, b e c a u s e S a n d e r s h a s n o t presente d a n extraordinary a n d e x c e p t i o n a l

r e q u e s t f o r m a n d a m u s r e l i e f

, we will de ny h i s petiti on

. I n light of our disposition,

Sanders ’ request for a sta y of his cri minal pr oceedings pending the adjudication of this

petition is de nied as moot.