In re: JORDAN ZAHLER v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 3d Cir. 1996 . Zahler has not demonstrated his entitlement to…

ALD-083 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 26-1201
___________
In re: JORDAN ZAHLER,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 5:25-cv-04215)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
February 12, 2026
Before: SHWARTZ, FREEMAN, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 25, 2026)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Pro se petitioner Jordan Zahler seeks a writ of mandamus asking us to intervene in
his civil action filed in the District Court. We decline to issue the requested writ.
Zahler brought a civil action against Gregory Alvarez, Jackson Lewis P.C., and
unnamed members of that law firm’s Board of Directors. The law firm represented
Zahler’s former employer. The named defendants moved to dismiss the complaint or,
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
alternatively, to stay the proceeding. Zahler opposed the motion. He also requested entry
of default judgment against the named defendants because they did not file an answer,
and they did not meet and confer with Zahler before moving to dismiss.
Meanwhile, Zahler twice moved for the recusal of the assigned District Court
Judges. The District Court granted the first motion, and the case was reassigned. The
basis for the second recusal motion was that one of the law firm’s attorneys was
appearing before the newly assigned District Court Judge in a different case. That same
attorney had represented Zahler’s former employer in Zahler’s unemployment
compensation appeal hearing. The District Court denied the motion. Zahler filed a motion
for reconsideration, which the District Court also denied. Then, the District Court granted
the defendants’ motion to dismiss, offering Zahler leave to amend some of his claims.
Zahler has filed a mandamus petition requesting that we 1) direct the District
Court Clerk to enter default judgment against the named defendants; 2) reassign the civil
action to a different Judge; and 3) “[r]efer this matter to the Judicial Council of the Third
Circuit for review of the repeated assignment of conflicted judges to this case[.]”
“The writ of mandamus is an extreme remedy reserved for only the most extraordinary
situations.” In re Abbott Lab’ys, 96 F.4th 371, 379 (3d Cir. 2024) (citation modified). The
petitioner must show: “(1) a clear and indisputable abuse of discretion or error of law, (2)
a lack of an alternate avenue for adequate relief, and (3) a likelihood of irreparable
injury.” Id. (citation omitted). A writ of mandamus may be warranted where “undue

-- 2 of 4 --

3
delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74,
79 (3d Cir. 1996).
Zahler has not demonstrated his entitlement to such extraordinary relief. See
Abbott Lab’ys, 96 F.4th at 379. To the extent that Zahler’s mandamus petition could be
construed as seeking an order compelling the District Court’s adjudication of the
defendants’ motion to dismiss, that request is now moot. See Blanciak v. Allegheny
Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698–99 (3d Cir. 1996). Further, there is no reason why
Zahler cannot challenge the District Court’s decision to grant the defendants’ motion to
dismiss, or its implicit decision not to enter default judgment against the defendants, on
appeal. See Abbott Lab’ys, 96 F.4th at 379.1
We also will not disturb the District Court Judge’s decision not to recuse under 28
U.S.C. § 455(a). See Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc., 10 F.3d 155, 163 (3d Cir.
1993) (explaining that our mandamus power includes authority to review a district court
judge’s refusal to recuse under § 455(a)). We review that decision for an abuse of
discretion. See In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 368 F.3d 289, 300–01 (3d Cir. 2004). A judge
should disqualify herself if a reasonable person who is aware of all the facts might
reasonably question her impartiality. See id. at 301–02. Here, the District Court properly
explained that the attorney’s involvement in an unrelated case did not create an
1 To the extent that the District Court’s order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss
did not implicitly reject Zahler’s request for default judgment, any delay in adjudicating
that request has not approached a failure to exercise jurisdiction. See Madden, 102 F.3d at
79.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
appearance of impropriety or provide a reasonable basis to question the District Court
Judge’s impartiality.
Furthermore, we decline to refer this matter to the Judicial Council because there
is no evidence of repeated assignment of conflicted judges, and Zahler has provided no
other basis for referral. For these reasons, we will deny the mandamus petition.2
2 To the extent that Zahler asks us to “[s]tay the District Court’s . . . Order” granting the
defendants’ motion to dismiss, “including the . . . amendment deadline,” we conclude that
relief is not warranted.

-- 4 of 4 --