and 06-3290 GEOFFREY WILLARD ATWELL v. Paul T. Dean; Michael A. George

ALD-69 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NOS. 06-3153 and 06-3290
________________
GEOFFREY WILLARD ATWELL,
Appellant
v.
PAUL T. DEAN; MICHAEL A. GEORGE
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 06-cv-01046)
District Judge: Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
November 30, 2006
BEFORE: SLOVITER, CHAGARES and NYGAARD, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: December 20, 2006)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Geoffrey Atwell, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denying his motion
for recusal and an order dismissing his civil rights complaint. We will dismiss his appeals
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

-- 1 of 3 --

Atwell was initially notified that his appeal of the order denying recusal (C.A. No. 06-1
3153) might be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because a final order had not been
entered in his case at the time he filed his appeal. Because the District Court has now
entered a final order, we have jurisdiction to review the order denying recusal along with
Atwell’s appeal from the final order, in C.A. No. 06-3290. We hereby consolidate these
two appeals.
2
Atwell filed a civil rights action against former Assistant District Attorney Paul
Dean and former District Attorney Michael George alleging that they falsely and
maliciously prosecuted him in violation of his rights to due process and equal protection
of the law. Atwell sought various remedies, including the prosecution of Dean and
George for violating federal law, and the termination of their employment.
Shortly thereafter, Atwell sought the recusal of District Judge Sylvia Rambo
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 144, 455(a) and 455(b)(1). Atwell alleged that Judge Rambo
was biased against him based upon her adverse rulings in civil rights actions he filed
when he was incarcerated, and the fact that this Court remanded some of his cases to the
District Court for further proceedings. Atwell also stated that he filed a criminal
complaint against Judge Rambo, and that she had a conflict of interest because she was
previously employed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Judge Rambo denied the motion for recusal and subsequently dismissed Atwell’s
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). These appeals followed. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.1
As recognized by Judge Rambo, opinions formed by a judge on the basis of events

-- 2 of 3 --

occurring in the course of prior proceedings do not constitute a basis for a bias motion
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144, 455(a) and 455(b)(1) unless they display a deep-seated
antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S.
540, 555 (1990). Judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias
motion. Id. As Atwell’s allegations do not show a deep-seated antagonism, Judge
Rambo did not abuse her discretion in denying Atwell’s request for recusal based upon
her rulings in his prior lawsuits, and the fact that some of those decisions were remanded
on appeal. We also agree that Judge Rambo’s employment as a Pennsylvania judge thirty
years ago, and the fact that Atwell filed a complaint against Judge Rambo, of which she
stated she had no knowledge, did not require recusal.
Judge Rambo also did not err in dismissing Atwell’s complaint. To the extent
Atwell sought damages for false and malicious prosecution, Atwell has no cause of action
under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 absent a showing that his conviction has been reversed,
expunged, declared invalid, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ
of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). The District Court
also correctly noted that it lacked authority to order the defendants’ prosecution or the
termination of their employment.
Accordingly, we will dismiss these appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
3

-- 3 of 3 --