BLD-148 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 17-1097
___________
IN RE: JOSEPH AULISIO,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Related to M.D. Pa. 4-14-cv-00196)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
March 2, 2017
Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR. and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 18, 2017)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Pro se petitioner Joseph Aulisio seeks a writ of mandamus compelling District
Judge Matthew W. Brann to recuse himself from presiding over Aulisio’s civil rights
action. For the reasons set forth below, we will deny Aulisio’s mandamus petition.
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
Aulisio is a state prisoner who is serving a sentence at the Retreat State
Correctional Institution, Hunlock Creek, Pennsylvania (“SCI-Retreat”). In February
2014, Aulisio brought suit against several SCI-Retreat personnel under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
for alleged violations of his civil rights. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, which the District Court granted in part and denied in part,
allowing only a portion of Aulisio’s action to proceed. In May 2015, Aulisio filed a
motion for the recusal of Judge Brann. In December 2015, the District Court denied the
motion on the ground that it merely reflected disagreement with the court’s ruling on the
motion to dismiss. Aulisio appealed several matters to this Court (including the recusal
issue), and we dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. See C.A. No. 15-
4004. We noted specifically that “[t]o the extent that Appellant claims that the District
Court misread his complaint and committed legal error in dismissing several of his
claims, he has not shown that mandamus relief is warranted; he may raise his arguments
in an appeal taken at the appropriate time.” Id.
In October 2016, Aulisio filed a second motion for recusal. The gravamen of this
motion was that Aulisio had uncovered evidence in discovery that suggested that the
ruling on the motion to dismiss was incorrect. While that motion was pending, Aulisio
filed the instant petition for a writ of mandamus, alleging that Judge Brann is “corrupt”
and “has an agenda” because of his ruling on the motion to dismiss. Aulisio further
alleges that, in ruling on the motion to dismiss, Judge Brann “fabricated claims” to “stack
the deck” against him, “lied,” acted in collusion with the defense attorney according to
2
the “Good Ol’ Boy System,” and “judicially rape[d]” him. 1
We have the power to issue writs of mandamus under the All Writs Act, which
provides that “[t]he Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may
issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and
agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211,
219 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)). Mandamus, however, is a drastic
remedy that is available only in extraordinary cases. In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig.,
418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005) (citations and internal quotations omitted). A petitioner
seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus must have no other adequate means to obtain
the desired relief, and must show that the right to issuance of the writ is clear and
indisputable. Id. at 378-79.
A mandamus petition is a proper means of challenging a district judge’s refusal to
recuse pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455. In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 368 F.3d 289, 300-01
(3d Cir. 2004). Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), recusal is required when a “reasonable person,
with knowledge of all the facts, would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might
reasonably be questioned.” Kensington, 368 F.3d at 301 (citation and quotations
omitted). Nonetheless, “[w]e have repeatedly stated that a party’s displeasure with legal
rulings does not form an adequate basis for recusal.” Securacomm Consulting, Inc. v.
1
On February 1, 2017, the District Court denied the second motion for recusal on the
same basis as it had denied the first motion. The defendants’ motion for summary
judgment is pending in the District Court.
3
Securacom Inc., 224 F.3d 273, 278 (3d Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). Moreover, recusal
is not required on the grounds of “highly tenuous speculation.” In re United States, 666
F.2d 690, 694 (1st Cir. 1981).
Aulisio falls well short of the high bar for obtaining a writ of mandamus.
Aulisio’s petition is rich in accusations, but it is grounded in mere dissatisfaction with the
District Court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss. The “evidence” cited by Aulisio may or
may not be relevant to the ruling on the motion to dismiss or the pending summary
judgment motion, but it does not shine a light upon any alleged judicial bias or
corruption. In short, Aulisio has not shown a clear and indisputable right to issuance of
the writ. He may file a proper appeal of Judge Brann’s legal rulings in due course.
Accordingly, we will deny Aulisio’s petition for a writ of mandamus.
4