Amin Rashid v., 699 F. App'x 124

Amin Rashid, a federal prisoner, was indicted (2008–2009) on multiple mail fraud, aggravated identity theft, and related counts; convicted and sentenced to 240 months; convictions affirmed on appeal.
Rashid repeatedly sought Judge Cynthia Rufe’s disqualification under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455 during pretrial, trial, and post-conviction proceedings; prior mandamus petitions seeking recusal were denied by this Court.
Post-conviction, Rashid filed a § 2255 motion (denied without an evidentiary hearing) and then petitioned for a writ of mandamus asking this Court to disqualify Judge Rufe and to compel an evidentiary hearing alleging perjury and errors concerning use of the U.S. mail vs. private courier.
The Third Circuit declined to reconsider issues previously rejected under the law-of-the-case doctrine and treated the mandamus petition as seeking extraordinary relief that Rashid had not shown entitlement to.
The court found Rashid could have pursued review on appeal and that mandamus is not a substitute for appeal; his impartiality claims against Judge Rufe amounted to disagreement with rulings and did not show bias or valid grounds for recusal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus should compel recusal of Judge Rufe	Rashid argued Judge Rufe was biased and should be disqualified	District Court rulings were correct; prior denials and record do not show bias	Denied — rulings alone do not establish bias; no basis for recusal
Whether mandamus should compel an evidentiary hearing on § 2255	Rashid claimed government witness perjured herself and hearing was required	Court found record did not require a hearing and prior procedures sufficed	Denied — petitioner failed to show entitlement to extraordinary mandamus relief
Whether issues already decided may be relitigated	Rashid raised arguments previously rejected by this Court	Court invoked law-of-the-case to bar reconsideration	Denied — prior rulings control and identical claims need not be relitigated
Whether mandamus is appropriate when appellate review is available	Rashid sought immediate extraordinary relief	Respondents argued appellate process provides adequate remedy	Denied — mandamus unavailable where relief could be obtained on direct appeal

Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394 (mandamus is extraordinary relief)
Cheney v. United States Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367 (mandamus is not substitute for appeal)
Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 U.S. 500 (mandamus unavailable if direct appeal could provide relief)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (judicial rulings alone rarely constitute bias)
In re Antar, 71 F.3d 97 (Third Circuit may order recusal via mandamus)
In re City of Philadelphia Litig., 158 F.3d 711 (law-of-the-case doctrine explained)
Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81 (mandamus standard: clear and indisputable right required)