2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-12-2013

In Re: Jason Collura

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 13-1842

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

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 2013 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: Jason Collura " (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 988.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/988
GLD-185 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 13-1842

___________

IN RE: JASON COLLURA,

 Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Related to Civ. No. 12-cv-04398)

____________________________________

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

April 4, 2013

Before: FUENTES, FISHER and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: April 12, 2013)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Jason Collura petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the District Court Judge 

to recuse himself from presiding over Collura’s civil rights action. For the reasons 

below, we will deny the petition.

The procedural history of this case is well known to the parties and need not be 

discussed at length. Briefly, Collura filed a civil rights action in the Court of Common 

Pleas for Philadelphia County. The defendants removed the matter to the District Court 
2

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Collura subsequently filed a motion for recusal 

which the District Court denied.

The writ of mandamus will issue only in extraordinary circumstances. See Sporck 

v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312, 314 (3d Cir. 1985). As a precondition to the issuance of the writ, 

the petitioner must establish that there is no alternative remedy or other adequate means 

to obtain the desired relief, and the petitioner must demonstrate a clear and indisputable 

right to the relief sought. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976). Mandamus 

is available to review a District Court’s refusal to recuse pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), 

see Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc., 10 F.3d 155, 163 (3d Cir. 1993).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 455, a judge should recuse if his impartiality might reasonably 

be questioned or he has a personal bias. A litigant’s displeasure with the District Court’s 

legal rulings is not an adequate basis for recusal. Securacomm Consulting, Inc. v. 

Securacom Inc., 224 F.3d 273, 278 (3d Cir. 2000). “[O]pinions formed by the judge on 

the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, 

or of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless 

they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment 

impossible.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Here, it is clear from 

Collura’s motion for recusal that he is simply displeased with the District Court’s legal 

rulings denying his motion to remand the matter to the state court and requiring him to 

file an amended complaint deleting inappropriate language. Collura has not shown a 
3

clear and indisputable right to have the District Court Judge recuse himself from the 

matter.

For the above reasons, the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.