eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
 2006-11

In Re: Joseph Jarvis ( 2006 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
11-21-2006
In Re: Joseph Jarvis
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-3974
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Joseph Jarvis " (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 164.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/164
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 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
BLD-1
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 06-3974
_____________
IN RE: JOSEPH JARVIS,
Petitioner
_____________________________
Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to D.N.J. Civil No. 04-cv-00055)
______________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. Pro.
October 5, 2006
Before: RENDELL, AMBRO and ROTH, Circuit Judges.
(Filed November 21, 2006)
___________________
OPINION OF THE COURT
__________________
PER CURIAM
Joseph Jarvis petitions for a writ of mandamus requiring Magistrate Judge
Madeline C. Alreo of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to
recuse herself from the underlying action.
Jarvis alleges judicial misconduct based on the Magistrate Judge’s harsh
words towards Jarvis’s former attorney, failure to notify Jarvis of schedule changes in the
case, and unjustified rulings in favor of the opposing party. He also contends that the
Judge is being influenced by a retired Federal District Judge who is the father of one of
the opposing party’s attorneys and associated with that attorney’s law firm. The
Magistrate Judge denied Jarvis’s motion for recusal on September 18, 2006.
We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) and review the
Magistrate Judge’s decision not to recuse for abuse of discretion. See In re Kensington
Int’l, Ltd.,
    368 F.3d 289
    , 300-301 (3d Cir. 2004) (abuse of discretion standard applies
when the district court rules on a motion to recuse after a petition for writ of mandamus is
filed in the Court of Appeals). Under 28 U.S.C.§ 455(a), a Magistrate Judge must
“disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be
questioned.” Disqualification under § 455(a) is required if “a reasonable person, with
knowledge of all the facts, would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably
be questioned.” In re Kensington
    Int’l, 353 F.3d at 301
    . While actual bias need not be
shown,
    id. at 302, 
    “a movant must supply some objective facts that support his position,
not mere speculation.” See U.S. v. Martorano,
    866 F.2d 62
    , 68 (3d Cir. 1989).
Absent extraordinary circumstances, “‘beliefs or opinions which merit
recusal must involve an extrajudicial factor’” beyond what has occurred in the
proceedings. Selkridge v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co.,
    360 F.3d 155
    , 167 (3d Cir.
2004) (citation omitted). Petitioner has failed to allege any objective facts that could
support a finding that there were extrajudicial factors creating the appearance of
impartiality. His allegations regarding the Magistrate Judge’s ex parte contact with
opposing counsel’s father are mere speculation. See Martorano, 866 at 68. Likewise,
2
nothing about the Magistrate Judge’s alleged handling of motions, petitioner’s telephone
calls, or the court appearances of his former attorney is extreme enough to support a claim
of bias or partiality. See Securacomm Consulting, Inc. v. Securacom, Inc.,
    224 F.3d 273
    ,
278 (3d Cir. 2000). If petitioner disagrees with the Magistrate Judge’s rulings, he may
appeal them at the appropriate time. See In re Briscoe,
    448 F.3d 201
    , 211 (3d. Cir. 2006)
(citations omitted).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of mandamus will be
denied.
3