Opinion ID: 3015339
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Where he has a personal bias or prejudice

Text: concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings. . . . Id. Beliefs or opinions which merit recusal generally must stem from an extrajudicial source. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554 (1994). Because the focus is on the source of the judge’s views and actions, “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for bias or partiality motion.” Id. at 555 (citing United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 583 (1966)). Similarly, “judicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge.” Id. Section 455(a) mandates an objective rather than a subjective inquiry. See United States v. Bertoli, 40 F.3d 1384, 1412 (3d Cir. 1994) (“‘The judge does not have to be subjectively biased or prejudiced, so long as he appears to be so.’”) (quoting Liteky, 510 U.S. at 553 n.2); Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc., 10 F.3d 155, 162 (3d Cir. 1993) (“‘[T]he public's confidence in the judiciary, which may be irreparably harmed if a case is allowed to proceed before a judge who appears to be tainted’, requires that ‘justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.’”) (quoting In re Sch. Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d 764, 776 (3d Cir. 1992)). Therefore, “if a ‘reasonable man, were he to know all the circumstances, would harbor doubts about the judge’s impartiality’ under the applicable standard, then the judge must recuse.” United States v. Antar, 53 F.3d 568, 71 574 (3d Cir. 1995) (quoting In re Larson, 43 F.3d 410, 415 (8th Cir. 1994)). Appellants make no allegation that the District Court derived its alleged bias from an extrajudicial source; rather all incidents cited in Appellants’ motion refer to rulings or statements made by the District Court during the course of the proceedings. We find that, notwithstanding our ruling that the District Court abused its discretion in various aspects of its management of this class action, Appellants have not demonstrated that the Court exercised “such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555. We will therefore deny Appellants’ petition for a writ of mandamus.37 IV.