Gregory Brown v. , 696 F. App'x 600 ( 2017 )

DLD-307 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 17-1148
___________
IN RE: GREGORY GARRETT BROWN,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(Related to W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 1-16-cv-00166)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
July 20, 2017
Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE, and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 31, 2017)
_________
OPINION *
_________
PER CURIAM
Gregory Garrett Brown petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the Magistrate
Judge to recuse herself from his District Court proceeding. For the reasons below, we
will dismiss the petition as moot.
In June 2016, Brown filed a civil rights complaint. In August 2016, he filed a
motion to recuse the Magistrate Judge based on his allegation that she was related to a
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
defendant. The Magistrate Judge denied the motion because she determined that she was
not related to any defendant. In December 2016, he again requested that the Magistrate
Judge recuse herself, alleging that she owned stock in a corporation that profited from
prison labor. He did not name a specific corporation or give any other details. The
Magistrate Judge denied the motion for recusal, having determined that the allegations
lacked merit. In January 2017, Brown filed yet another motion to recuse in which he
asserted that the Magistrate Judge harbored a bias and prejudice against him and was
willing to commit unspecified judicial atrocities on behalf of the defendants’ attorney.
He contended that the Magistrate Judge was so biased that she refused to read his
pleadings and that a two-month delay in acting on one of his motions amounted to a
violation of due process. The Magistrate Judge denied the motion as meritless.
Shortly before the Magistrate Judge denied his January 2017 motion to recuse,
Brown filed this mandamus petition. He alleged that the Magistrate Judge conspired with
the defendants’ counsel to violate his rights. He requested that we direct the Magistrate
Judge to be impartial or recuse herself from his case. He also requested that we order the
District Court to appoint him counsel.
After Brown filed his mandamus petition, the District Court adopted the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and granted summary judgment for the
defendants, as he had failed to properly exhaust the administrative process. 1 Because the
1
Brown filed an appeal but the appeal was dismissed for failure to pay the filing fees.
2
District Court proceeding is finished, an order directing the Magistrate Judge to recuse
herself or appointing counsel would have no effect on the proceedings. 2 Because there is
no effective relief we can grant him, his request for mandamus relief is moot and we will
dismiss the petition. See In re Cantwell, 639 F.2d 1050, 1053 (3d Cir. 1981) (“[A]n
appeal will be dismissed as moot when events occur during the pendency of the appeal
which prevent the appellate court from granting any effective relief.”).
See C.A No. 17-1541.
2
In any event, Brown’s bias allegations appear to have no basis other than his displeasure
with the Magistrate Judge’s rulings. Such allegations do not form 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).
3