Michael West v., 678 F. App'x 82

Michael West, a federal prisoner, filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in 2013 challenging his child pornography conviction and sentence; the case was assigned to Judge Claire C. Cecchi.
West amended his § 2255 filings multiple times; the motion remained pending into January 2017.
On January 9, 2017, while the § 2255 matter was pending, West filed a mandamus petition in this Court seeking (a) an order compelling Judge Cecchi to recuse or (b) to vacate his sentence and/or (c) an evidentiary hearing, and he alleged undue delay by the Government.
On January 17, 2017, Judge Cecchi denied West’s § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing and closed the case; West filed a notice of appeal on February 16, 2017 (appeal pending as C.A. No. 17-1376).
West’s mandamus petition sought relief overlapping with his § 2255 claims and sought to direct district-court action (recusal, hearing, vacatur, or compulsion to act).
The panel concluded mandamus was not warranted for multiple independent reasons and denied the petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus can compel Judge Cecchi to rule on West’s § 2255 motion	West sought an order to eliminate "undue delay" and compel action	Mandamus is unnecessary or moot because the district court already ruled	Moot as to compelling a ruling because Judge Cecchi denied the § 2255 motion before the petition was decided
Whether mandamus may be used to obtain an evidentiary hearing or vacatur of sentence	West asked the court to order an evidentiary hearing and vacatur	Mandamus is not a substitute for appeal or collateral attack; relief should be pursued through § 2255 and appeal	Denied: mandamus is not the proper vehicle for these requests
Whether mandamus may compel recusal of the district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 455	West sought recusal alleging partiality and/or other disqualifying conduct	No adequate showing that Judge Cecchi’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned or that she had disqualifying personal knowledge or bias	Denied: West failed to demonstrate grounds for recusal; mandamus not justified
Whether mandamus is appropriate given availability of other remedies	West implied mandamus was necessary due to alleged delays and conduct	Mandamus requires extraordinary circumstances and absence of other adequate means; appeal and § 2255 process provide remedies	Denied: West did not satisfy mandamus standards (no clear right, other adequate remedies exist, not appropriate under circumstances)

In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2005) (mandamus is a drastic, extraordinary remedy)
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183 (U.S. 2010) (standards for granting mandamus: no other adequate means, clear and indisputable right, appropriateness)
Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690 (3d Cir. 1996) (mootness doctrine applied to judicial actions rendered unnecessary by intervening events)
Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74 (3d Cir. 1996) (mandamus is not a substitute for appeal)