Matthew Ballister, III v.
687 F. App'x 186
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Matthew J. Ballister, III, a pretrial detainee accused of murder, filed a mandamus petition complaining about delays in screening three civil complaints he filed in the District of New Jersey.
- He also sought the district judge's recusal, alleging bias because of the nature of his criminal charges and claimed the judge was ignoring his filings.
- Ballister requested that this Court appoint counsel for his district-court actions and asked this Court to consider, in the first instance, claims about his criminal prosecution and lack of medical treatment, including requests for injunctive relief (release or transfer for medical care).
- After the mandamus petition was filed, the District Court screened the complaints and entered opinions and orders in all three actions.
- The District Judge had previously denied Ballister’s recusal requests and had opened a new action to accommodate some of his submissions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Delay in screening complaints / mootness | Ballister argued delay in screening warranted mandamus relief. | District Court completed screening after petition; delays do not require relief. | Petition as to delay is moot; no mandamus. |
| Recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 144 (statutory procedure) | District Judge should be recused for bias; refusal to recuse requires mandamus. | Mandamus not available; Ballister can appeal recusal denial after final judgment. | Mandamus not available for § 144 recusal refusal. |
| Recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455 (impartiality questioned) | Judge’s impartiality is reasonably questioned due to alleged bias against crimes. | No basis to reasonably question impartiality; judge afforded opportunities and even opened a new action. | No reasonable-basis showing; mandamus denied on § 455 theory. |
| Appointment of counsel and injunctive relief (including release/transfer/medical care) | Requests for counsel and injunctive relief needed to prosecute claims and address medical needs. | Requests meritless in mandamus; relief should be sought in district court proceedings. | Requests for counsel and injunctive relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 975 F.2d 964 (3d Cir. 1992) (mootness principles where intervening events render petition nonjusticiable)
- In re Sch. Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d 764 (3d Cir. 1992) (mandamus unavailable when adequate appellate review exists)
- In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211 (3d Cir. 2003) (mandamus review of recusal under § 455 is permissible)
- Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, 10 F.3d 155 (3d Cir. 1993) (standards for evaluating judicial impartiality under § 455)
- In re United States, 666 F.2d 690 (1st Cir. 1981) (recusal not required based on unsupported or tenuous speculation)