CLD
- 236 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 4

- 1823

___________ IN RE: LEI KE ,

Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from t he United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

( Related to E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 2

- 11

- cv
- 06708 )

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

April 24, 2014
Before: FUENTES, JORDAN and SHW ARTZ , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : May 1, 2014 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM
Lei Ke is the plaintiff in a n ongoing suit seeking reinstatement to the Drexel University College of Medicine, which he alleges wrongfully discharged h im . The parties are currently engaged in discovery. The mandamus petition at issue here is the sixth proceeding, and the fourth mandamus petition, arising out of that litigation that Ke
has filed in this Court. Ke’s previous mandamus petitions requested , inter alia, that we2

vacate certain of the District Court’s discovery orders and disqualify the District Judge

. We denied those petitions because the extraordinary writ of mandamus is not an appropriate remedy for orders that can be reviewed on appeal fr om a final judgment and
because Ke’s mere continued dissatisfaction with th e District Court’s rulings does not
state a basis to disqualify the District Judge

. See, e.g. , In re Ke , 538 F. App’x 129, 130 (3d Cir. 2013); In re Ke , 531 F. App’x 187 , 189, 191

- 92 (3d Cir. 2013). We have also
reminded Ke twice that “ ‘we will not grant writs of mandamus to micromanage on g oing proceedings in the District Court.’” In re Ke , 538 F. App’x at 130 ( quoting In re Ke , 531 F. App’x at 192). Ke’s present mandamus petitio n nevertheless seeks, once again, to vacate certain of the District Court’s discovery orders and to disqualify the District Judge. (Ke also requests that we order the District Court to reinstate John Fry as a defendant and allow Ke to depose him, but that issue too can await review if necessary on a ppeal from the final judgment.) This petition lacks merit, and we will deny it, for reasons we already have amply explained

. 1 We note that Ke has not so much as acknowledged our previous

1 For example, the District Court’s discovery rulings addressed in its opinion of March 20, 2014 (ECF No. 451) neither require immediate review nor give rise to any appearance of partiality. The District Court obviously has taken great pains to protect the confidentiality of non

- party students’ personal information while at the same time fashioning a mechanism to provide Ke with certain discovery that he contend s he needs to prov e his claims. We express no opinion on the merits of its rulings (which, once again, can be reviewed if necessary on appeal from the final judgment), but they come nowhere close to suggesting the kind of bias or hostility that Ke alleges. Ke’s continued allegations in that regard are all the more troubling because the District Court obviously3

rulings, let alone pro vided any explanation for why he believes that the principles applied therein do not control his present mandamus petition as well. Ke is advised that any mandamus petition he files in the future that suffer s from the same deficiencies will be summarily d enied. Ke is further advised that, although we will not consider imposing
sanctions for his repeated filings at this time, we will not allow him to abuse this Court’s process indefinitely. For these reasons, Ke’s mandamus petition wi ll be den ied. Ke’s motion to disqualify “opposing” counsel in this Court is denied as well.

has expended substantial time in managing this regrettably difficult litigation and continues to do so both in an even

- handed manner and with appropriate sensitivity to Ke’s pro se status.