CLD-141 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-1233
___________
IN RE: ELAINE KARAS,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to D.C. Civil Action No. 08-cv-5264)
____________________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
March 4, 2010
Before: BARRY, FISHER and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 30, 2010)
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM
In February 2003, following a dispute over a residential lease, former tenants of
Elaine Karas filed an action against her in New Jersey Superior Court seeking the return
of a security deposit. In March 2007, the Superior Court entered default judgment against
Karas after she failed to appear for trial. In October 2008, Karas brought an action in the
District Court alleging that her former tenants and several state court judges conspired,
during the pendency of the state court action, to deprive her of her civil rights and her
right to a fair trial. Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss the complaint. In a
December 28, 2009 order, the District Court granted the final motion to dismiss on the
basis that it failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. However, the docket
reflects that the District Court did not close the case until January 22, 2010, when it ruled
on the final outstanding motion in the case – Karas’ motion for declaratory judgment.
On January 21, 2010, Karas filed in this Court a petition for writ of mandamus
asking us to: 1) remove of the District Court Judge assigned to the case; 2) vacate all of
the District Court’s prior orders; and 3) remand the case to state court. Karas alleges that
the District Court Judge has engaged in improper behavior, including communicating ex
parte with defense counsel and deliberately refusing to docket and/or review certain of
her filings, including several motions for sanctions. Karas further alleges that the District
Court has repeatedly misrepresented the facts of the case in its rulings and has
intentionally falsified and misapplied the law in order to “justify a particular outcome.”
(Petition for Writ of Mandamus at 2.)
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. See Kerr v. U.S. Dist Ct., 426
U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Within the discretion of the issuing court, mandamus traditionally
may be “used . . . only ‘to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed
jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.’” Id.
(citations omitted). A petitioner must show “no other adequate means to attain the
2
desired relief, and . . . a right to the writ [that] is clear and indisputable.’” See In re
Patenaude, 210 F.3d 135, 141 (3d Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).
Karas previously filed a motion in the District Court to disqualify the District
Court Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455. The District Court denied the request.
Mandamus is the proper means by which we review the denial of a recusal motion filed
pursuant to § 455. See Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc., 10 F.3d 155, 163 (3d Cir.
1993). Our inquiry is “whether the record, viewed objectively, reasonably supports the
appearance of prejudice or bias.” See In re Antar, 71 F.3d 97, 101 (3d Cir. 1995).
Judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion
and mandamus is not a substitute for appeal. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555
(1994); Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81.
The record does not reasonably support the appearance of bias or prejudice on the
part of the District Court Judge. Karas’ allegations are unsupported by any facts
suggesting that the District Court Judge has acted improperly or that he is biased against
her. Certainly, the District Court’s alleged improper recitation of the facts of the case in
its rulings does not constitute such a gross abuse of discretion that recusal is warranted.
To the extent that Karas claims error in those rulings, she may appeal those decisions to
this Court. Id. Moreover, Petitioner’s case has been closed in the District Court and a
request to recuse the District Court Judge at this point is moot.
Karas also asks that we vacate all of the District Court’s orders and remand the
3
matter to state court for further proceedings. Karas appears to base her request on the
alleged improper behavior of the District Court Judge. However, we have concluded that
the record does not support Karas’ allegations of impropriety. Furthermore, other than
claiming that the District Court has misrepresented the facts of the case in its prior orders,
Karas has not described any specific errors made by the Court in those rulings.
For the foregoing reasons, mandamus relief is not appropriate. We will deny the
petition.
4