Opinion
No. 07-5370.
Filed On: February 5, 2008.
BEFORE: Ginsburg, Chief Judge, and Sentelle and Griffith, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis; and the petition for a writ of mandamus (styled as a motion for recusal) and the supplement thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis be granted. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus be denied. A writ of mandamus is "an extraordinary remedy, to be reserved for extraordinary situations." Cobell v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1128, 1137 (D.C. Cir. 2003). A writ of mandamus compelling recusal of a judicial officer will nonetheless issue where the party seeking the writ demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief. See In re Brooks, 383 F.3d 1036, 1041 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (citing Cobell, 334 F.3d at 1139). A party has such a right when a judicial officer's "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C. §§ 455(a). A judicial officer's rulings which rest on evidence in the record "almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion." See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 551, 555 (1994) (quoted in SEC v. Loving Spirit Foundation Inc., 392 F.3d 486, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2004)). Because "a reasonable and informed observer would [not] question the judge's impartiality" under the circumstances presented, the petition for mandamus is denied.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.