Bradley Livingston v.

Opinion

DLD-015 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 25-2882 ___________

IN RE: BRADLEY LIVINGSTON, 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. No. 2:24-cv-5838) ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. October 23, 2025

Present: RESTREPO, PORTER, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: November 3, 2025) ___________

OPINION* ___________

Pro se Petitioner Bradley Livingston has filed a petition for writ of mandamus

seeking relief in his case in the United States District Court for the District of New

Jersey. We will deny Livingston’s mandamus petition.

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Livingston’s underlying case in the District Court arises from his purported

wrongful termination from employment. Livingston requests this Court to: (1) vacate

sanctions issued against him; and (2) order the District Court to rule on pending motions.

A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary

circumstances. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005).

Mandamus should not issue unless the petitioner has “no other adequate means to attain

the relief” sought and has shown that his right to the writ is “clear and indisputable.” Id.

at 378-79 (quoting Cheney v. United States Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004)).

However, mandamus relief can be warranted when a court’s “undue delay is tantamount

to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).

A review of the District Court docket in the case listed above does not indicate

undue delay. The District Court has been actively involved and has issued numerous

orders related to relevant filings. Livingston filed an amended complaint in May 2025.

The Defendant answered that amended complaint 10 days later. In July 2025, the

Magistrate Judge denied Livingston’s motion for the appointment of counsel. Livingston

then filed a notice of appeal on July 2, 2025, in which he appealed from several orders

from the District Court. That appeal remains pending. See C.A. No. 25-2284.

Livingston filed a motion for summary judgment in July 2025, and the Defendant

filed a response in opposition. Livingston’s July 2025 motion for summary judgment

remains pending. This Court has every confidence that the District Court will rule on

2 Livingston’s outstanding motion for summary judgment in due course. Accordingly,

Livingston fails to show extraordinary circumstances to warrant granting a writ of

mandamus.2

To the extent that Livingston is challenging Magistrate Judge Espinosa as the

assigned Magistrate Judge, no mandamus relief is warranted. Livingston filed a motion to

recuse Magistrate Judge Espinosa. Magistrate Judge Espinosa denied Livingston’s

recusal motion finding that he failed to provide adequate reasons for recusal and noted

that the Court’s orders did not constitute a proper basis for recusal. We see no reason to

grant the extraordinary relief of mandamus with respect to Magistrate Judge Espinosa’s

decision not to recuse. First, judicial decisions are generally not a basis for a judge to

recuse himself. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Second,

Livingston had further recourse by appealing Magistrate Judge Espinosa’s order not to

recuse to the District Judge.

Livingston also requests that this Court intervene with respect to sanctions that

have been issued against him in the District Court. In reviewing the record, the sanctions

against Livingston in this underlying District Court case appear related to the Chief Judge

of the District of New Jersey’s preclusion order against Livingston entered on May 7,

2025. That preclusion order stated that any new case by Livingston be assigned to the

2 Livingston requested in a supplement to his mandamus petition that he is also entitled to default judgment. However, as indicated above, the Defendant filed an answer to Livingston’s amended complaint. 3 Chief Judge of the District of New Jersey. It further required Livingston to show cause in

any new action why his claims are not frivolous or otherwise duplicative to his other

cases. Shortly after the Chief Judge of the District New Jersey issued that preclusion

order, Livingston filed an amended complaint in the underlying District Court case giving

rise to this mandamus petition. The Defendant, 10 days later, filed its answer to that

pleading. The underlying case remains open and ongoing. Livingston comes forward with

nothing in this mandamus petition to warrant the extraordinary relief of mandamus

relevant to any sanctions. This is particularly so given the active and ongoing nature of

Livingston’s case in D.N.J. Civ. No. 24-cv-5838 described above.

Accordingly, we will deny Livingston’s mandamus petition.