In re: Matthew Ballister, III

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: SMITH, Chief Judge, MCKEE and FUENTES, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 3. Ballister's other pending requests, including his requests for counsel and injunctive relief, also are denied.

Case: 17-1114

Document: 003112597562

Page: 1

Date Filed: 04/19/2017

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 17-1114
___________
In re: MATTHEW J. BALLISTER, III,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to D.N.J. Civ. Nos. 2:15-cv-07655, 2:15-cv-07865, & 2:16-cv-01691)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
February 23, 2017
Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, MCKEE and FUENTES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: April 19, 2017)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
On January 17, 2017, Matthew J. Ballister, III, a pretrial detainee, filed a petition
for a writ of mandamus in which he complained about the delay in screening the
complaints in three actions he filed in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey. In that petition and supporting documents (including documents captioned

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute
binding precedent.

Case: 17-1114

Document: 003112597562

Page: 2

Date Filed: 04/19/2017

motions), he also seeks the District Judge’s recusal, claiming that the District Judge
presiding over all three actions is exposing her bias against him by ignoring his filings. 1
He posits that the crimes for which he is detained (he is accused of murdering his
girlfriend) offend the District Judge. He further asks us to appoint him counsel for his
District Court actions. He also seems to request that we consider in the first instance his
claims relating to his criminal prosecution and his lack of medical treatment and grant his
requests for injunctive relief (which include a request for release or a transfer to a facility
that would provide him medical care).
On March 2, 2017, the District Court screened the complaints and entered
opinions and orders in all three actions. Accordingly, to the extent the petition relates to
the delay in ruling, it is moot because it no longer presents a live controversy. See, e.g.,
Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 975 F.2d 964, 974 (3d Cir. 1992).
Furthermore, to the extent that Ballister’s petition seeks the District Judge’s
recusal, mandamus relief is not warranted. First, insomuch as Ballister seeks mandamus
relief related to any refusal by the District Judge to recuse under 28 U.S.C. § 144,
mandamus relief is not available because Ballister may still take an appeal from that
order after final judgment is entered in his District Court cases. See In re Sch. Asbestos
Litig., 977 F.2d 764, 774-76 (3d Cir. 1992).
To the extent that Ballister argues that recusal is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 455 on
the basis that the impartiality of the judge presiding over his cases might reasonably be
questioned, we may consider the issue on mandamus. See In re Kensington Int’l Ltd.,
1

The District Judge previously rejected his requests for her recusal.

2

Case: 17-1114

Document: 003112597562

Page: 3

Date Filed: 04/19/2017

353 F.3d 211, 219-20 (3d Cir. 2003); Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, 10 F.3d 155, 163
(3d Cir. 1993). However, there is no basis to question the District Judge’s impartiality.
She has afforded him opportunities to present his claims, going so far as to open up a new
action for several of his recent submissions. Although there was some delay in screening
the complaints, the delay does not suggest partiality or bias, despite Ballister’s claim to
the contrary. Cf. In re United States, 666 F.2d 690, 694 (1st Cir. 1981) (stating recusal is
not required on the basis of “unsupported, irrational, or highly tenuous speculation”).
For these reasons, the petition for a writ of mandamus will be denied. Ballister’s
other pending requests, including his requests for counsel and injunctive relief, also are
denied.

3