Third Circuit disposition — 261847np-pdf

DLD-140 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 26-1847
___________
IN RE: KENNETH R. TALLEY; KRISTINA KAREN TALLEY;
KURT R. COSTELLO,
Petitioners
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
(Related to 1:25-cv-00662)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
May 28, 2026
Before: RESTREPO, PORTER, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: June 8, 2026)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Kenneth R. Talley, Kristina K. Talley, and Kurt R. Costello (“Petitioners”) have
filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus asking us to intervene in their civil action
filed in the District Court. We will deny the petition.
* 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 3 --

2
Petitioners filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware related to eviction proceedings brought against Kenneth Talley. Petitioners’
complaint is difficult to follow, but they seemingly alleged a host of civil rights violations
in connection with this eviction. Petitioners also moved to recuse District Judge
Maryellen Noreika, alleging that her rulings were biased and legally incorrect. Judge
Noreika denied Petitioners’ motion, noting that Petitioners’ allegations were “conclusory
and unfounded.”
Petitioners have now filed a mandamus petition in this Court asking us to compel
the District Judge’s recusal under § 455. As they did in the District Court, Petitioners
suggest, without any factual support, that the District Judge engaged in ex parte
communications (but does not identify with whom), tampered with court records, and
developed personal relationships with other lawyers and judicial officers, which
undermines her ability to be impartial.
We will deny the petition. Mandamus may be used to review a judge’s refusal to
recuse pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). See Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc., 10
F.3d 155, 163 (3d Cir. 1993). Recusal under § 455(a) is required where “a reasonable
person, knowing all the acknowledged circumstances, might question the district court
judge’s continued impartiality.” Id. at 164. To the extent that Petitioners seek recusal
based on an appearance of partiality, we see no evidence of bias or any other reason why
Judge Noreika should recuse herself from Petitioners’ case. See 28 U.S.C. § 455; In re
Kensington Int’l Ltd., 368 F.3d 289, 301 (3d Cir. 2004). Petitioners’ mere disagreement
with the District Judge’s rulings is not an adequate basis for recusal. See Securacomm

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Consulting, Inc. v. Securacom Inc., 224 F.3d 273, 278 (3d Cir. 2000). To the extent
Petitioners seek other relief, this mandamus proceeding may not be used as a substitute
for an appeal. See Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 77 (3d Cir. 1996).
Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition.

-- 3 of 3 --