Third Circuit disposition — 094410np-pdf

BLD-108 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-4410
___________
IN RE: NOEL K. BANGO,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
(Related to 1-08-cr-00153-001)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
January 28, 2010
Before: MCKEE, RENDELL and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 25, 2010)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Noel Bango, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus. For the reasons stated below, we will deny the petition.
Bango seeks to have Chief Judge Sleet, who presided over Bango’s criminal
matter, disqualified from presiding over any present or future civil or criminal
proceedings involving him. Bango alleges that Chief Judge Sleet exhibited prejudice,
bias, and partiality against him when he remanded Bango into custody and terminated his
out-patient treatment. Bango believes that Chief Judge Sleet issued these rulings because

-- 1 of 3 --

Bango’s appeal from his conviction and sentence is currently pending before this1
Court. (C.A. No. 09-3863).
Based on our review of the District Court’s docket, it does not appear that Bango2
filed a motion seeking to disqualify Chief Judge Sleet pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455 or 28
U.S.C. § 144.
2
Bango filed ineffective assistance of counsel motions against his court-appointed
attorneys. Bango also alleges that, because he filed grievances against the prisons where
he was housed and threatened to sue for “medical neglect, physical abuse, and
[lockdown],” Chief Judge Sleet retaliated against him and sentenced him to 21 months’
incarceration.1
The writ of mandamus is an extreme remedy that is granted only when there is no
other remedy available to the petitioner and the petitioner’s right to mandamus relief is
clear and indisputable. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re
Pasquariello, 16 F.3d 525, 529 (3d Cir. 1994). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute
for the regular appeals process. See In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 212 (3d Cir. 2006).
Litigants seeking to disqualify a judge may file a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
455 or 28 U.S.C. § 144. However, claims of actual judicial bias pursuant to § 144 are2
not appropriate for mandamus. Green v. Murphy, 259 F.2d 591, 594 (3d Cir. 1958) (en
banc). Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) may be brought via mandamus. See Alexander
v. Primerica Holdings, 10 F.3d 155, 163 (3d Cir. 1993). “[J]udicial rulings alone almost
never constitute a valid basis for a bias or impartiality motion.” Liteky v. United States,
510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).

-- 2 of 3 --

To the extent that Bango’s claim falls under § 455, he has not shown that he is
entitled to relief. Bango’s petition rests on his disagreement with Chief Judge Sleet’s
rulings, and without more, he cannot show bias or impartiality. Moreover, nothing in the
Bango’s filing indicates that the Chief Judge is biased against him. Accordingly,
mandamus relief is not appropriate. In addition, we will deny Bango’s requests to (1) file
his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in another federal district; (2) compel the District
Court to reinstate his out-patient treatment; and (3) issue any further declaratory relief.
3

-- 3 of 3 --