Thomas Noble v., 663 F. App'x 188

Thomas E. Noble is a prolific pro se filer who previously (2004) was enjoined from filing civil rights complaints in the District of Delaware without prior court permission.
In 2016 Noble filed multiple suits in the District of Delaware, including a hybrid habeas/civil‑rights pleading (No. 1:16‑cv‑00406) and a purported class action challenging child‑pornography statutes and enforcement (No. 1:16‑cv‑00407).
Judge Sue L. Robinson severed and dismissed the civil‑rights portions of the hybrid petition under the prior filing injunction and declined to recuse from the habeas portion; Noble appealed and also filed additional suits naming the judge.
Noble sought mandamus relief in the Third Circuit asking (1) to vacate the 2004 filing injunction, (2) to vacate Judge Robinson’s dismissals/orders, and (3) to compel Judge Robinson’s recusal from the two cases.
The Third Circuit treated mandamus as an extraordinary remedy and evaluated whether Noble had alternative appellate remedies and whether the district court acted unlawfully in enforcing the injunction or refusing recusal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity/enforceability of 2004 filing injunction	2004 injunction is invalid and should be vacated by mandamus	Injunction was lawful; Noble could have appealed originally	Denied—mandamus unavailable to substitute for an appeal; injunction challenge should have been via appeal
Enforcement of filing injunction against 2016 filings	Dismissals under the injunction were improper	District Court properly enforced injunction and dismissed civil‑rights claims	Denied—Noble failed to show unlawful exercise of jurisdiction in enforcement; mandamus not warranted
Recusal of Judge Robinson from hybrid habeas action	Judge must recuse because she was named as a defendant in the severed civil‑rights suit	Naming the judge as a defendant does not require recusal in the separate habeas case	Denied—§ 455 not shown to require recusal; refusal to recuse can be challenged on appeal
Mandamus to vacate dismissal / compel recusal in class action	Dismissal and nonrecusal in class action should be vacated	Decisions are appealable and not appropriate for mandamus	Denied—Noble may seek review on direct appeal; mandamus inappropriate

In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372 (3d Cir.) (mandamus is an extraordinary remedy)
In re Patenaude, 210 F.3d 135 (3d Cir.) (mandamus confines inferior courts to lawful jurisdiction)
In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211 (3d Cir.) (mandamus unavailable when normal appeal lies)
Oracare DPO, Inc. v. Merin, 972 F.2d 519 (3d Cir.) (expiration of appeal period does not make mandamus available)
Hong Mai Sa v. Doe, 406 F.3d 155 (2d Cir.) (mandamus may review enforcement of filing restrictions but requires unlawful exercise of jurisdiction)
Richardson Greenshields Secs., Inc., 825 F.2d 647 (2d Cir.) (scope of mandamus relief principles)
White v. ABCO Eng’g Corp., 199 F.3d 140 (3d Cir.) (severance can effectively separate claims)
Patton v. Jefferson Corr. Ctr., 136 F.3d 458 (5th Cir.) (endorsing severance of habeas and civil‑rights claims)
U.S. ex rel. LaCorte v. SmithKline Beecham Clinical Labs., Inc., 149 F.3d 227 (3d Cir.) (dismissal of severed claims can be final and appealable)
Azubuko v. Royal, 443 F.3d 302 (3d Cir.) (naming a judge as defendant alone does not compel recusal)
In re Specht, 622 F.3d 697 (7th Cir.) (mandamus as to severance denied)
Melvin v. Nickolopoulos, 864 F.2d 301 (3d Cir.) (discussing staying civil‑rights claims during habeas proceedings)