Gnana Chinniah v., 670 F. App'x 59

Gnana and Suganthini Chinniah, pro se, sued East Pennsboro Township and officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging discrimination based on Indian descent/Hinduism; a jury entered judgment for defendants after a four-day trial before Judge Kane.
The Chinniahs’ counsel withdrew post-trial; the Chinniahs appealed pro se and this Court affirmed the judgment.
The Chinniahs moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) alleging improper juror contacts and argued counsel changed strategy as a result; the district court denied relief and this Court affirmed.
The Chinniahs later filed a new lawsuit naming many of the same defendants and others; they moved to recuse Judge Kane from that case under 28 U.S.C. § 455.
The district court denied recusal; the Chinniahs sought mandamus review in this Court, arguing appearance of partiality based on (a) alleged undisclosed prior relationship between Judge Kane and a law firm, (b) perceived protection of court staff, (c) possible connections to local persons, and (d) the district court’s handling of alleged jury contacts.
The Court denied the mandamus petition, finding the recusal claims speculative or amounting to dissatisfaction with judicial rulings and noting prior appellate treatment that the jury communications were not serious or improper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Judge Kane must recuse under 28 U.S.C. § 455 for appearance of partiality	Judge Kane has an appearance of partiality due to an undisclosed prior relationship with a law firm, protection of court staff, local connections, and refusal to investigate jury contacts	Judge Kane’s impartiality is not reasonably in question; allegations are speculative or reflect disagreement with rulings	Denied — allegations speculative or mere displeasure with rulings do not require recusal
Whether prior handling of alleged juror contacts supports recusal	Failure to hold a hearing or adequately investigate alleged improper juror contacts shows bias	The prior handling was a legal ruling; communications were not serious or improper per prior appellate opinion	Denied — dissatisfaction with prior rulings insufficient; prior appellate finding that contacts were innocuous supports denial

Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc., 10 F.3d 155 (3d Cir. 1993) (mandamus is proper to review denial of recusal under § 455)
In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 368 F.3d 289 (3d Cir. 2004) (standard for whether a reasonable person would question a judge’s impartiality)
In re Antar, 71 F.3d 97 (3d Cir. 1995) (inquiry focuses on whether the record objectively supports appearance of prejudice)
Securacomm Consulting, Inc. v. Securacom Inc., 224 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2000) (a party’s displeasure with legal rulings does not warrant recusal)
In re United States, 666 F.2d 690 (1st Cir. 1981) (recusal not required for unsupported, irrational, or highly tenuous speculation)