Amir McCain a/k/a John McCain v.
707 F. App'x 758
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Amir McCain sought a writ of mandamus from the Third Circuit challenging handling of his civil-rights suit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- He requested: (1) transfer of the case to a federal district court in Philadelphia; (2) recusal/removal of Judge Rambo; and (3) production of transcripts for two telephone conferences (Oct. 29, 2015; Jan. 12, 2017) and two bench-trial days (July 24 & 27, 2017).
- The District Court had already provided transcripts for the two bench-trial days; no transcripts existed for the telephone conferences.
- McCain filed the mandamus petition before Judge Rambo ruled on his recusal motion.
- McCain alleged racial bias by Judge Rambo but offered only conclusory, unsubstantiated allegations.
- The Third Circuit treated mandamus as an extraordinary remedy and evaluated McCain’s requests against the stringent mandamus standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of mandamus to obtain transcripts | McCain sought appellate direction to obtain transcripts of two teleconferences and two trial days | District Court had already provided trial-day transcripts; no teleconference transcripts existed | Denied as moot for trial-day transcripts; teleconference transcripts do not exist, so relief unavailable |
| Recusal of Judge Rambo under 28 U.S.C. § 455 | McCain argued Judge Rambo was biased (racially) and should be recused | Implicit defense that rulings alone do not require recusal and allegations are unsubstantiated; also Judge had not yet ruled on recusal motion | Denied: mandamus inappropriate because McCain hadn’t awaited a district-court ruling and allegations were conclusory, not objective facts |
| Transfer of case to another federal district court | McCain asked the court of appeals to order transfer to Philadelphia | No extraordinary or unusual circumstances shown to warrant direct transfer by court of appeals | Denied: no "unusual circumstances" to justify direct appellate transfer |
| Use of mandamus generally | McCain sought immediate extraordinary relief | Mandamus requires lack of adequate alternative, clear and indisputable right, and appropriateness under circumstances | Denied: McCain failed to satisfy mandamus prerequisites (other remedies available; rights not clear and indisputable) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372 (3d Cir.) (mandamus is a drastic, extraordinary remedy)
- Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183 (2010) (three-part mandamus test described)
- Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690 (3d Cir.) (transcript request can be rendered moot if court provides transcript)
- In re Sch. Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d 764 (3d Cir.) (mandamus is proper vehicle to challenge a judge’s refusal to recuse in some circumstances)
- Securacomm Consulting, Inc. v. Securacom Inc., 224 F.3d 273 (3d Cir.) (adverse rulings alone do not warrant recusal)
- United States v. Martorano, 866 F.2d 62 (3d Cir.) (recusal motions must be grounded in objective facts, not unsubstantiated allegations)
- Koehring Co. v. Hyde Constr. Co., 382 U.S. 362 (1966) (court of appeals may directly order transfer only in unusual circumstances)