in Re: Drew Bradford v. Primerica Holdings, Inc. 10 F.3d 155, -- 2 of 3 -- To the extent Bradford sought the…

BPS-328 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-3603
________________
IN RE: DREW BRADFORD,
Petitioner
__________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to D. N.J. Civ. No. 05-cv-00421)
District Judge: Honorable Stanley R. Chesler
__________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. Pro.
August 4, 2005
BEFORE: RENDELL, FISHER and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges
(Filed : August 15, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Drew Bradford, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
seeking review of a District Court judge’s refusal to recuse himself from presiding over
Bradford’s civil rights action. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition.
Bradford filed a complaint in New Jersey state court against a law firm, lawyers,
police officers and other individuals in connection with criminal charges brought against
him which he claims are false. The defendants removed the complaint, which alleges

-- 1 of 3 --

In an earlier recusal motion, Bradford alleged that after he left a message on the1
Judge’s office answering machine regarding his case, a person from chambers called him,
and threatened to call the United States Marshall if he called the office again. He also
alleged that a member of the defendant law firm recommended Judge Chesler to be a
Magistrate Judge. The District Court denied the recusal motion, and we denied
Bradford’s related mandamus petition on June 27, 2005.
2
violations of Bradford’s federal constitutional rights to free speech and equal protection
under the law, to federal court.
Bradford moved for the recusal of District Court Judge Stanley Chesler. He
argued that Judge Chesler and his staff are potential witnesses for the defendants in
connection with their counterclaim against him. The defendants filed three counterclaims
against Bradford, including a claim that he violated their fair access to the courts by
intimidating the court staff and attempting to intimidate judges. The defendants alleged
that Bradford made baseless allegations against Judge Chesler and his staff.1
In denying Bradford’s latest recusal motion, the District Court noted that under 28
U.S.C. § 455, personal bias creates a duty to recuse where the court’s actions reveal such
a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible, and that
Bradford’s allegations did not reveal such favoritism or antagonism. The District Court
Judge also noted that, contrary to Bradford’s additional allegation, he had no knowledge
that one of the defendants supported him in his appointment as a Magistrate Judge, or any
other position of employment.
Mandamus is a proper means for the Court to review the denial of a recusal motion
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455. Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc. 10 F.3d 155,

-- 2 of 3 --

To the extent Bradford sought the recusal of Judge Chesler pursuant to 28 U.S.C.2
§ 144, mandamus does not lie to review the denial of such a recusal motion. In re School
Asbestos Litigation, 977 F.2d 764, 776 (3d Cir. 1992).
3
163 (3d Cir. 1993). We review a judge’s decision not to recuse himself for an abuse of
discretion. In re Antar, 71 F.3d 97, 101 (3d Cir. 1995). Our inquiry focuses on whether
the record, viewed objectively, reasonably supports the appearance of prejudice or bias.
Id.
The record does not reasonably support the appearance of prejudice or bias on the
part of Judge Chesler. We believe Judge Chesler will be able to fairly adjudicate the
defendants’ claim that Bradford’s actions, including his allegations against the Judge and
his staff, are denying them fair access to the courts. In addition, as we stated previously,
Bradford’s unsubstantiated allegation that a member of the defendant law firm supported
Judge Chesler for the position of Magistrate Judge does not warrant mandamus relief.
Judge Chesler did not abuse his discretion is denying the recusal motion.
Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.2

-- 3 of 3 --