EL D- 0 1 3 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 4215

___________ I N R E : GI DGE T M OC K, Pet i t i oner

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on fora W r i tof M andamus fr om the U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( R el at ed t o D . C . C i vi l N o. 06- cv- 01722; 06- cv- 01724; 07- cv- 01605; 07- cv- 02052)

D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Petr es e B . T ucker

____________________________________ S u b m itte d p u rs u a n t to R u le 2 1 , F e d . R . A p p . P .

D ece m ber3, 2009 B efor e: B A R R Y , FI SH E R and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t19, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i onerG i dgetM ock s eeks a w r i tof m andamus di r ect i ng the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a t o cons ol i dat e and r emand se ver al c a s e s to th e U n ite d S ta te s B a n k ru p tc yC o u rt . T h e p r o c e d u r a l h i s t o r yu n d e r l y i n g th i s p e t i t i o n i s c o n f u s i n g a tb e s t . F r o m w h a twe can di s cern, i n M ar ch 2006 the U ni t ed St at es B ankrupt cyC our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ctofT he M ay20 08 order appears t o h ave creat ed tw o level s of co nsoli dati on , as, 1 al though C i v. N o. 07- cv- 1605 had al r eadybeen c ons ol i dat ed underC i v. N o. 06- cv- 1722, th e D is tr ic t C o u rt th e n c o n s o lid a te d s e v e ra l a d d itio n a l c a s e s u n d e r i t. W e n o te th at th e D istri ct C o u rt , o n A p ri l 14 , 2 0 0 8 , h ad d en ied M o ck ’s 2 appl i cat i ons forI FP i n C i v. N os . 08- cv- 0183 and 07- cv- 5557. A l though the D i s tr i ct C o u rt su b se q u e n tlyc o n so lid a ted th e se c a se s u n d e r C iv . N o . 0 7 -c v -1 6 0 5 , ita p p e a rs th a t it Penns y l vani a di s m i s s ed M ock’ s bankrupt cypet i t i on and di s m i s s ed as m oota r el at ed adver s arypr ocee di ng. A ddi t i onal l y , M ock cl ai m s that , i n A pr i l 2007, the B ankrupt cy C o u rt d e n ie d h e r r e q u e s t to p ro c e e d in f o rm a p a u p e ri s (“ IF P ” ). M ock’ s B ankrupt cyC our tpr ocee di ngs l ed t o s ever al appea l s and ca us es of ac t i on fi l ed i n the D i s tr i ctC our t . See 28 U . S. C . A . § 158 ( s t at i ng thatdi s tr i ctcourt s have j ur i s di ct i on t o hearappea l s fr om cert ai n bankrupt cycourtj udgm ent s and or der s ) . T he D i s tr i ctC our t , on J ul y16, 2007, i s s ued an or derunderC i v. N o. 06- cv- 1722 cons ol i dat i ng the fol l ow i ng cas es : C i v. N os . 06- cv- 1724, 07- cv- 1605, and 07- cv- 2052. M ock cont i nued t o fi l e addi t i onal caus es of ac t i on and appe al s and, on M ay27, 2008, the D i s tr i ctC our ti s s ued an or derunderC i v. N o. 07- cv- 1605 ( w hi ch had a l r eadybeen cons ol i dat ed underC i v. N o. 06- 1722) cons ol i dat i ng the fol l ow i ng cas es : C i v. N os . 07- cv- 2052, 07- cv- 2873, 07- cv- 3269, 07- cv- 4682, 07- cv- 5557, and 08- cv- 0183. 1 T hen, on O ct ober10, 2008, the D i s tr i ctC our ti s s ued an or deri n C i v. N o. 07- cv1 6 0 5 : (1 ) d ism iss in g M o c k ’s m o tio n f o r re c o n sid e ra tio n in C iv . N o . 0 8 -c v -0 1 8 3 a s m o o t; ( 2) deny i ng w i th pr ej udi ce M ock’ s I FP m ot i on i n C i v. N o. 07- cv- 4682; and ( 3) deny i ng w i th pr ej udi ce M ock’ s appea l s underC i v. N os . 07- cv- 1605, 07- cv- 2052, 07- cv- 2873, 07- cv- 3269, and 07- cv- 4682. 2cons i der ed thes e ca s es cl os ed due t o i t s deni al of M ock’ s I FP appl i cat i ons — as the

O ct ober10, 2008 or derdi d notdi s m i s s thes e ca s es . M ock appe al ed fr om the A pr i l 14, 2008 or derdeny i ng herI FP appl i cat i on i n C i v. N o. 08- cv- 0183. W e s um m ar i l yvaca t ed the or derand r emanded t he ca s e forfur therpr ocee di ngs . See M ock v. N or thampt on C o u n ty , C . A . N o . 0 8 -24 6 3 , 3 1 6 F . A p p ’x 8 6 (3d C ir . M ar. 12 , 2 0 0 9 ). T h e D istri ct C o u rt h a s y e t to a c t o n re m a n d . A ddi t i onal l y , as t o C i v. N os . 06- cv- 1722 and 06- cv- 1724, i tappea r s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tal s o cons i der s thes e ca s es cl os ed. N everthel es s , i n M ock’ s appea l fr om t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of herI FP appl i cat i on i n C i v. N o. 06- cv- 1722, w e s t at ed thats he w as notpr ej udi ced bythe deni al of I FP becaus e “de s pi t e the deni al of the I FP appl i cat i on, the ca s e has s eemi ngl ypr ocee ded i n the D i s tr i ctC our tw i thouti m pedi m ent , ” and a s an exampl e of the ongoi ng natur e of the ca s e, not ed thatthe D i s tr i ctC our thad “c ons ol i dat ed w i th the i ns t antcas e thr ee s epar at e bankrupt cyappea l s . ” See I n r e M ock, C . A . N o. 07- 2891, 252 F. A pp’ x 522, 524 ( 3d C i r . N ov. 1, 2007) . U nt i l M ock fi l ed a mot i on for cl ar i fi cat i on i n M ar ch 2009, no act i vi tyhad t aken pl ace i n C i v. N os . 06- cv- 1722 ori n 06- cv- 1724 s i nce the J ul y2007 cons ol i dat i on or der . A l though the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed M o c k ’s M a rc h 2 0 0 9 m o tio n a s m o o t, th e s ta tu s o f th e s e c a s e s re m a in s u n c le a r. In M a rc h 2 0 0 9 , M o c k f ile d a M o tio n f

o r C la ri f ic a tio n u n d e r C iv . N o . 0 7 -c v -1 6 2 2 . She s oughti nform at i on conce r ni ng the s t atus of C i v. N os . 06- cv- 1722, 06- cv- 1724, 07- cv- 1605, 07- cv- 2052, 07- cv- 5557, as w el l as a pet i t i on forw r i tof m andamus thats he purpor t edl yfi l ed i n t he D i s tr i ctC our t . O n O ct ober14, 2009, the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed the m o tio n a s m o o t. Soon t her eaf

t er , M ock fi l ed the curr entpet i t i on fora w r i tof m andamus. She cl ai m s thatthe B ankrupt cyC our tand the D i s tr i ctC our tvi ol at ed herdue pr oces s r i ght s by deny i ng of herappl i cat i ons forI FP st atus , as s ert s thatthe ca s es cons ol i dat ed i n J ul y2007 “r emai n dor m antdue t o I FP i s s ue, ” and c l ai m s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s O ct ober14, 2009 o rde r vio lat ed h er d u e p roc ess righ ts. S h e re q u ests that this C o u rto rde r th e D istri ct C o u rt t o cons ol i dat e hercas es and r emand t hem t o B ankrupt cyC our tforadj udi cat i on.M a n d a m u s is a d ra s tic re m e d ya v a ila b le o n ly in th e m o s t e x tr a o rd in a ry si tu a tio n s .

I n r e N w anze , 242 F. 3d 521, 524 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . A s pr econdi t i ons t o the i s s uance of the w r i t , the pet i t i onerm us tes t abl i s h t hatthe w r i tw i l l notbe us ed as a s ubs t i tut e forthe re g u lar a p p e a ls p ro c e ss , tha t th e re is n o a ltern a tiv e re m e d yo r o th e r a d e q u a te m e a n s to obt ai n the r el i ef de s i r ed, and thatthe r i ghtt o the r el i ef s oughti s “cl earand i ndi s put abl e. ” K errv. U . S . D i st . C ou rt , 42 6 U . S . 39 4, 40 3 (197 6). M ock ’s peti t i on do es not m eetthese re q u ir e m e n ts . F irst, a D istric t C o u rt h a s b ro a d d isc re tio n to d e ter m in e w h e th e r to c o n so lid a te cas es , s ee Fed. R . C i v. P. 42( a) ; I nves t or s R es ear ch C o. v. U . S. D i s t . C our t , 877 F. 2d 777, 777 ( 9th C i r . 1989) , and M ock has m ade no s how i ng thatthe D i s tr i ctC our thas abus ed i t s di s cr et i on bynotcons ol i dat i ng al l of hercas es and appe al s . A ddi t i onal l y , s he h a s n o t d e m o n s tr a te d a c le a r a n d in d is p u ta b le ri g h t to a re m a n d to B a n k ru p tc yC o u rt . T hatherappea l s t o t he D i s tr i ctC our tm ayhave be en dec i ded adve r s el yt o herdoes not m ean thatthe dec i s i ons w er e i m pr operorthats he di d notr ece i ve due pr oces s , as s he al l eges . I tappea r s thats he mer el ys eeks t o ci r cumventthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of s ever al of herappea l s and compl ai nt s byfi l i ng pet i t i on fora w r i tof m andamus r ather than appe al i ng fr om thes e dec i s i ons . See I n r e D i etD rugs Pr ods . L i ab. L i t i g. , 418 F. 3d 3 7 2 , 3 7 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( s ta tin g th a t m a n d a m u s c a n n o t b e u s e d a s a s u b s titu te f o r a p p e a l) . W e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r w ri t o f

m a n d a m u s .