Court Opinion

ID: 9925444
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-19 21:00:50.401241+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:40.476849
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                      ___________

                           No. 23-3037
                           ___________

                In re: ANTHONY WILLIAMS,
                                    Petitioner
           ____________________________________

           On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
               (Related to D.C. No. 5:20-cv-03511)
           ____________________________________

          Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
                     on December 28, 2023

      Before: BIBAS, MATEY, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges

                 (Opinion filed: January 19, 2024)
           ____________________________________
                                       OPINION *
                                      ___________

PER CURIAM

    Anthony Williams has filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus compelling the

District Judge to recuse himself from Williams’ civil rights action. For the reasons that

follow, we will deny the mandamus petition.

    Williams filed a complaint claiming violations of his constitutional rights stemming

from assaults he suffered in prison and the conditions of his confinement. The District

Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss his second

amended complaint. Following discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment.

That motion is pending.

    Shortly before the defendants filed their summary judgment motion, Williams filed a

motion seeking the recusal of the District Judge due to alleged bias. Williams asserted that

the District Judge had denied: (1) his motion for sanctions against attorney Lucas Repka

for improperly filing papers on behalf of a defendant who had died; (2) his motion for

sanctions against Repka and another attorney for allegedly making false statements in a

discovery-related filing; and (3) his motions to depose the defendants and obtain

*
  This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
                                             2
interrogatory responses. Williams stated that the defendants had not complied with the

Court’s discovery orders.

   The District Court denied Williams’ motion for recusal along with several other mo-

tions, including a motion for compliance and a motion to extend the discovery deadline.

The District Court noted that the discovery deadline had long passed and that the defend-

ants had complied with their remaining discovery obligations.

   Williams then filed his petition for a writ of mandamus in this Court. He asserts that

the District Judge’s recusal is required under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) because a reasonable per-

son might question the District Judge’s impartiality. Williams asks us to issue a writ re-

moving the District Judge and reopening discovery.

   A petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus must show that he has no other adequate

means to obtain relief, that he has a clear and indisputable right to the writ, and that the

writ is appropriate under the circumstances. Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190

(2010) (per curiam) (internal quotations and citation omitted). “Mandamus is a proper

means for this court to review a district court judge’s refusal to recuse from a case pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), where the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

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

a refusal for abuse of discretion. In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 368 F.3d 289, 300-01 (3d Cir.

2004).

   Williams has not shown that relief is due. He relies on the District Judge’s denials of

his motions, and he disagrees that the defendants complied with their discovery obligations.

However, “a party’s displeasure with legal rulings does not form an adequate basis for

                                              3
recusal.” Securacomm Consulting, Inc. v. Securacom Inc., 224 F.3d 273, 278 (3d Cir.

2000). And the record does not reflect that a reasonable person would conclude that the

District Judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. See Kensington Int’l Ltd.,

368 F.3d at 301-02 (discussing standard for disqualification). 1

    Accordingly, we will deny Williams’ mandamus petition.

1
  Williams also asserts in his mandamus petition that the District Judge erred in stating
that the Clerk had sent him a copy of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Williams, however, called this to the attention of the District Court, and the docket re-
flects that the Clerk sent Williams a copy of the motion on November 20, 2023.
                                             4