C L D - 269 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 10- 3253

___________ I N R E : KE I T H T . DOUGH E RT Y, Pet i t i oner

____________________________________ O n a Pet i t i on forW r i tof M andamus fr om the U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( R el at ed t o M . D . Pa. C i v. N o. 10- cv- 01071)

____________________________________ Sub mi t t e d Pu r s ua ntt o Rul e 21 , Fe d. R. A pp . P.

A ugus t19, 2010 B efore: B A R R Y , F ISH E R and G R E E N A W A Y , JR . , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: Sept ember10, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM K ei t h D ougher t y , pr ocee di ng pro se , fi l ed i n t he D i s t r i ctC our ta compl ai ntunder 42 U . S. C . § 1983. A ft erat t empt i ng t o s erve pr oces s on s ever al defe ndant s and r ece i vi ng no ans w ert o hi s compl ai nt , D ougher t yfi l ed thr ee mot i ons – al l w i t hi n ei ghtday s of ea ch ot her– r eques t i ng t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tent era def aul tj udgm entpur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 55 aga i ns tthe def endant s . T he fi r s tof thes e mot i ons w as del et ed fr om t he docke tas i m pr oper l yfi l ed. E i ghtday s aft erD ougher t yfi l ed hi s fi r s tR ul e 552

m o tio n , the D istric t C o u rt d e n ied h is re q u e sts , rea so n in g th a t D o u g h e rtyh a d n o t p ro p e rly s erved the def

endant s . D ougher t yuns ucce s s ful l ys oughtr econs i der at i on and then fi l ed a p eti ti o n fo r w ri t of

m an d am u s. H e re q u ests that w e d ir ec t th e D istri ct C o u rtto en ter a defa ultj ud gm ent agai nstt he d efen dan t s and thatw e com pel J ud ge C al dw el l t o recuse hi m s el f. D ougher t yal s o fi l ed a mot i on t o s uppl ementthe r ecor d, t o w hi ch he a t t ache d a c o p yo f th e D istric t C o u rt o rd e r d e n y in g h is m o tio n to re c o n sid e r h is re q u e st f o r a d e f a u lt j ud gm ent. L i beral l ycon strui ng his pro se fi l i ngs , w e cons t rue hi s i ncl us i on of the or der as a cha l l enge t o t he or derdeny i ng r econs i der at i on. M andamus i s an “e xt r aor di naryr emedy ” thatw e aw ar d onl yw hen a pe t i t i oner demonstr at es , among ot herthi ngs , a “c l earand i ndi s put abl e” r i ghtt o r el i ef. I n r e: Pr es s m an- G ut m an C o. , 459 F. 3d 383, 398- 99 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . M andamus l i es onl yw hen t he r e i s no othe rr e medy , M a l l a r d v . U . S. D i s t . Cour tfo rthe S. D i s t . of I owa, 49 0 U. S. 296, 309 ( 1989) , and thus m aynotbe us ed as a mer e s ubs t i tut e forappea l . I n r e: D i et D ru g s P ro d s. L iab . L iti g ., 4 1 8 F .3 d 3 7 2 , 3 7 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). T o th e e x ten t th a t D o u g h e rty chal l enges t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s det erm i nat i on thathe di d notpr oper l ys erve the defe nd ants , t hu s precl ud i ng a def aultj ud gm ent, m and am us i s not appropri at e for atl east t w o r eas ons . Fi r s t , he ca n r ai s e the i s s ue on appe al . Second, he ca nnots how thathe has an ind ispu table righ t t o en tryo f a d ef au ltb ec au se itap p ea rs th at th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s e x p o s i t i o n o f

t h e p e r t i n e n tl a w i s c o r r e c t . Se e Fe d . R. Ci v . P. 4 ; Pa . R. Ci v . P. 4 0 0 . ToDo u g h e r t yf i r s ts o u g h tJ u d g e Ca l d we l l ’ s r e c u s a l i n h i s ma n d a mu s p e t i t i o n . He 1 t hen fi l ed a r ecus al m ot i on i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t . D ougher t yat t ache d a copyof the D i s t r i ctC our tor derdeny i ng t hatm ot i on t o hi s m ot i on t o s uppl ement . A l t hough a m andamus pe t i t i on m aybe us ed t o chal l enge a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of a 28 U . S. C . § 455 rec u sal m o ti o n , see In re : K en sing ton Int’l L td., 3 6 8 F . 3 d 2 8 9 , 3 0 0 -01 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ), Do u g h e r t yi s n o te n t i t l e d t o t h a tr e me d yf o rth e r e a s o n s d i s c u s s e d b e l o w. 3 t he ext entt hathi s pet i t i on i ncl udes a cha l l enge t o t he deni al of hi s m ot i on for reconsi derat i on , m and am us i s not appropri at e for the sam e reas on s. W e al s o decl i ne t o or derJ udge C al dw el l ’ s r ecus al . “The t es tforr ecus al under 1 [28 U . S . C . ] § 455 (a) i s w hethera reas on able pers on , w i t h k no w l edg e of a l l the fa ct s, w oul d concl ude thatt he j udge’ s i m par t i al i t ym i ghtr eas onabl ybe ques t i oned. ” I n r e: K ens i ngt on I nt ’ l L t d. , 368 F. 3d 289, 301 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . D ougher t yar gues thatJ udge C al dw el l ’ s deni al of the def aul tj udgm entm ot i ons and ei ght - daydel ayi n rul i ng demonstr at e the j udge’ s bi as and evi nce a n att empt t o s abot age D ougher t y ’ s cas e by w as t i ng por t i ons of the 120- dayper i od dur i ng w hi ch he c an pr oper l ys erve the defe ndant s . A dver s e rul i ngs , w i t houtm or e, ar e i ns uffi ci entt o w arr antr ecus al under28 U . S. C . § 455. See Li t ekyv. U ni t ed St at es , 510 U . S. 540, 555 ( 1994) . A l t hough D ougher t ycont ends t hati tt ook ei ghtday s forthe D i s t r i ctC our tt o rul e on hi s m ot i ons for d e f a u l t , w e n o t e t h a tJ u d g e C a l d w e l l ’ s o r d e rw a s e n t e r e d o n th e d o c k e to n l y tw o d a ys a f ter th e se c o n d , p ro p e rly -f iled m o tio n w a s s u b m itt e d . D o u g h e rtyp o in ts to n o a u th o rity sugg est i ng t hat s uch a delayi s i nd i cat i ve o f j ud i ci al bias .4

T he mot i on t o s uppl ementi s gr ant ed, butforthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l deny D ougher t y ’ s pet i t i on.