In Re: Alberto Concepcion v.
25-1542
| 3rd Cir. | May 7, 2025Background
- Alberto Concepcion, a former federal prisoner convicted of conspiracy to distribute heroin, filed a new motion in December 2024 seeking recusal of the District Judge and challenging his conviction and the legality of his supervised release.
- The District Court docketed this as a § 2255 motion and, in March 2025, denied the recusal motion and dismissed the § 2255 as an unauthorized successive motion.
- Concepcion filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Third Circuit, claiming delay in adjudication and improper judicial involvement.
- The District Court had previously enjoined Concepcion from filing further claims without permission due to prior litigation history.
- Concepcion also sought to consolidate his mandamus petition with an ongoing appeal of the District Court's denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Delay in ruling on recusal motion | District Court delayed ruling | District Court already ruled | Moot—relief obtained |
| Mandamus to compel recusal | Judge should recuse under §455 | No factual basis for recusal | Denied—no basis found |
| Mandamus for §144 denial | Relief warranted for recusal | Appeal, not mandamus, is proper | Denied—not proper relief |
| Consolidation with pending appeal | Cases should be consolidated | Not addressed | Denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690 (3d Cir. 1996) (mandamus relief moot when relief already granted)
- In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 2006) (mandamus cannot substitute for appeal)
- In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211 (3d Cir. 2003) (mandamus appropriate for §455 recusal issues)
- Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, 10 F.3d 155 (3d Cir. 1993) (mandamus available to review §455 recusal)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (judicial rulings rarely constitute bias for recusal)