Joseph Aulisio v.
689 F. App'x 119
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Joseph Aulisio, a Pennsylvania state prisoner, sued several SCI‑Retreat personnel under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging civil‑rights violations.
- Defendants moved to dismiss; the district court granted the motion in part and allowed a portion of the complaint to proceed.
- Aulisio moved for Judge Matthew W. Brann’s recusal in May 2015; the district court denied the motion as reflecting mere disagreement with its prior ruling.
- Aulisio appealed aspects of the case (including recusal); this Court dismissed that appeal for lack of jurisdiction and instructed that legal errors could be raised on proper appeal later.
- After discovery, Aulisio filed a second recusal motion and a mandamus petition alleging corruption, fabrication of claims, collusion, and other misconduct by Judge Brann; the district court again denied recusal and summary judgment remained pending.
- The Third Circuit treated the mandamus petition and denied it, finding Aulisio’s allegations amounted to dissatisfaction with judicial rulings and did not meet the high standard for mandamus relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is appropriate to compel Judge Brann’s recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) | Aulisio argued Judge Brann was corrupt, biased, colluding with defense counsel, and fabricated findings, so recusal is required | Mandamus is extraordinary; recusal is not warranted absent facts showing reasonable question as to impartiality; displeasure with rulings is inadequate | Denied — Aulisio’s allegations were dissatisfaction with rulings and speculative; he did not show a clear, indisputable right to mandamus relief |
| Whether discovery evidence undermines the dismissal ruling and supports recusal | Aulisio contended newly discovered evidence shows the dismissal ruling was incorrect and evidences bias | District court held such evidence did not demonstrate judicial bias or corruption sufficient for recusal | Denied — Evidence, even if relevant to merits, did not demonstrate judicial bias warranting recusal |
| Whether appellate mandamus is an appropriate vehicle for challenging legal rulings | Aulisio sought immediate mandamus rather than awaiting a final appeal | Court and precedent require ordinary appellate process for review of legal rulings unless extraordinary circumstances exist | Denied — Court reiterated that ordinary appeals are the proper remedy for alleged legal error |
| Whether petitioner exhausted other adequate means before seeking mandamus | Aulisio had avenues: appeal at appropriate time and district court proceedings | Mandamus requires no other adequate means to obtain relief | Denied — petitioner failed to show lack of alternative remedies and did not meet the high mandamus standard |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211 (3d Cir. 2003) (All Writs Act and mandamus standards)
- In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 368 F.3d 289 (3d Cir. 2004) (mandamus available to challenge refusal to recuse under § 455)
- In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2005) (mandamus is drastic remedy available only in extraordinary cases)
- 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 on highly tenuous speculation)