Mr. McVeigh filed a motion for recusal of the presiding judge, the Honorable Wayne E. Alley, who had been randomly assigned to the case. Thereafter, Mr. Nichols filed his own recusal motion, arguing additional bases for recusal not presented by Mr. McVeigh. Thus, this matter is before us as an original proceeding in the nature of mandamus. An order denying a motion to recuse is interlocutory and is, therefore, not immediately appealable. It is established in this circuit, however, that mandamus is an appropriate vehicle by which to challenge a district court's denial of a recusal motion.
Mandamus is available only upon a showing of a clear and indisputable right to relief.
A petitioner seeking mandamus relief must demonstrate a clear abuse of discretion, or conduct by the district court amounting to a usurpation of judicial authority. To ensure that mandamus remains an extraordinary remedy, petitioners must show that they lack adequate alternative means to obtain the relief they seek . . . . Liljeberg v. Health Servs. If it would appear to a reasonable person that a judge has knowledge of facts that would give him an interest in the litigation then an appearance of partiality is created even though no actual partiality exists because the judge does not recall the facts, because the judge actually has no interest in the case or because the judge is pure in heart and incorruptible. In applying this objective standard, the initial inquiry is whether a reasonable factual basis exists for questioning the judge's impartiality.