CLD-236 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-1823

___________

IN RE: LEI KE,

 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. 2-11-cv-06708)

____________________________________

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

April 24, 2014

Before: FUENTES, JORDAN and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: May 1, 2014)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Lei Ke is the plaintiff in an ongoing suit seeking reinstatement to the Drexel 

University College of Medicine, which he alleges wrongfully discharged him. 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 we 
2

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 from a final judgment and 

because Ke’s mere continued dissatisfaction with the 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 ongoing 

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 petition 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 appeal 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 contends he needs 

to prove 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 obviously 
3

rulings, let alone provided 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 suffers from the same deficiencies will be 

summarily denied. 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 will be denied. 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.