Jake Bylsma v., 25-1307

Jake Bylsma, representing himself, filed a civil rights lawsuit alleging violations of his First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
After the dismissal of a claim against one defendant and his counsel’s withdrawal, Bylsma moved to proceed pro se; the District Court granted the counsel’s withdrawal but found Bylsma's motion moot.
Bylsma sought disqualification of the District Judge for alleged lack of impartiality under 28 U.S.C. § 455, citing dissatisfaction with court handling of certain motions.
The District Judge declined to recuse herself, finding no reasonable basis for questioning her impartiality, and later denied Bylsma's reconsideration motion.
Bylsma filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Third Circuit, seeking to compel the Judge’s recusal and to stay district court proceedings.
The Third Circuit simultaneously identified and dismissed Bylsma’s related interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Recusal for lack of impartiality under § 455	District Judge cannot be impartial	No evidence of bias or impropriety	No abuse of discretion; no recusal
Recusal for bias under § 144	District Judge is biased against Bylsma	Disagreement is not evidence of bias	Mandamus not appropriate under § 144
Stay of district court proceedings	Stay needed pending petition outcome	No extraordinary circumstances	Stay of proceedings denied

In re Sch. Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d 764 (3d Cir. 1992) (mandamus is not available to correct a judge’s failure to disqualify for actual bias)
Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc., 10 F.3d 155 (3d Cir. 1993) (mandamus can be used if a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned)
In re Kensington Int'l Ltd., 368 F.3d 289 (3d Cir. 2004) (reviewing recusal refusals for abuse of discretion)
Securacomm Consulting, Inc. v. Securacom Inc., 224 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2000) (party’s displeasure with legal rulings does not support recusal)