Jason Collura v.

GLD-185 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 13-1842
___________
IN RE: JASON COLLURA,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to Civ. No. 12-cv-04398)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
April 4, 2013
Before: FUENTES, FISHER and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: April 12, 2013)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Jason Collura petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the District Court Judge
to recuse himself from presiding over Collura’s civil rights action. For the reasons
below, we will deny the petition.
The procedural history of this case is well known to the parties and need not be
discussed at length. Briefly, Collura filed a civil rights action in the Court of Common
Pleas for Philadelphia County. The defendants removed the matter to the District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Collura subsequently filed a motion for recusal
which the District Court denied.
The writ of mandamus will issue only in extraordinary circumstances. See Sporck
v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312, 314 (3d Cir. 1985). As a precondition to the issuance of the writ,
the petitioner must establish that there is no alternative remedy or other adequate means
to obtain the desired relief, and the petitioner must demonstrate a clear and indisputable
right to the relief sought. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976). Mandamus
is available to review a District Court’s refusal to recuse pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a),
see Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc., 10 F.3d 155, 163 (3d Cir. 1993).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 455, a judge should recuse if his impartiality might reasonably
be questioned or he has a personal bias. A litigant’s displeasure with the District Court’s
legal rulings is not 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). Here, it is clear from
Collura’s motion for recusal that he is simply displeased with the District Court’s legal
rulings denying his motion to remand the matter to the state court and requiring him to
file an amended complaint deleting inappropriate language. Collura has not shown a
2
clear and indisputable right to have the District Court Judge recuse himself from the
matter.
For the above reasons, the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
3