Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Recusal — 28 U.S.C. § 455 — Displeasure with Judge’s Legal Rulings Is Not an Adequate Basis for Recusal (Good Quote)

Collura v City of Phila., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20810 (3d Cir. Oct. 27, 2014):

B. Denial of Motions for Recusal

To the extent that Collura seeks review of District [*7]  Court orders denying his motions for recusal, we reiterate what we said when denying Collura's petition for a writ of mandamus that sought the same relief:5

   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.

In re Jason Collura, C.A. No. 13-1842 (3d Cir. Apr. 12, 2013). We have thoroughly examined the District Court record, and we conclude that the Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Collura's recusal motions, as there is simply no evidence of bias.

5   We review the denial of a recusal motion for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Ciavarella, 716 F.3d 705, 717 n.4 (3d Cir. 2013).

Share this article:


Recent Posts