2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-21-2013

In Re: Lei Ke

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 13-3804

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2013 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re: Lei Ke " (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 57.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/57
BLD-007 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 13-3804

___________

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.

October 10, 2013

Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: October 21, 2013)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Lei Ke petitions for a writ of mandamus disqualifying the District Judge and 

vacating all discovery orders entered in the District Court. We will deny the petition for 

substantially the same reasons we denied Ke’s previous requests for relief.

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 

fifth proceeding that Ke has filed in this Court arising out of that litigation. Ke first filed 
2

an “appeal” from the District Court’s purported denial of his motion for a preliminary 

injunction before the District Court had even ruled on it, and we dismissed that appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction. (C.A. No. 12-4013.) Ke then filed a mandamus petition seeking an 

order directing the District Court to rule on that motion, which we denied. See In re Ke, 

No. 13-1364, 516 F. App’x 141 (3d Cir. 2013). 

After the District Court denied Ke’s motion for a preliminary injunction, Ke filed 

both an appeal from that ruling and a mandamus petition seeking review of other 

interlocutory rulings that are presently unappealable. Ke also filed mandamus-like 

“motions” to disqualify the District Judge and compel defendants to provide certain 

discovery. We affirmed the District Court’s denial of a preliminary injunction, dismissed 

Ke’s appeal and denied his mandamus petition as to the presently unappealable orders, 

and denied his mandamus-like motions. See In re Ke, Nos. 13-1776 & 13-2263, 2013 

WL 3753612 (3d Cir. July 18, 2013). We noted that Ke had not filed his motions seeking 

the District Judge’s disqualification and discovery rulings as proper mandamus petitions, 

but we proceeded to address them on the merits. See id. at *4-5. After doing so, we 

“reiterate[d] both the final judgment rule and the principle that mandamus is reserved for 

truly extraordinary circumstances,” and we reminded Ke that “[w]e will not grant writs of 

mandamus to micromanage ongoing proceedings in the District Court.” Id. at *5.

Undeterred, Ke has now filed another mandamus petition again seeking the 

District Judge’s disqualification and an order vacating all of the District Court’s 

discovery orders entered to date. Ke’s request for disqualification is based primarily on 

his continued disagreement with the District Court’s rulings, and he reiterates arguments 
3

that we already have rejected in denying his delay-based mandamus petition in C.A. No. 

13-1364, in affirming the District Court’s denial of a preliminary injunction in C.A. No. 

13-1776, and in denying his mandamus-like motions seeking the same relief in that 

proceeding. Ke also continues to argue that the District Judge has displayed hostility 

toward him and favoritism toward the defendants in ruling on discovery issues, but our 

review of the record reveals nothing of the sort. To the contrary, the District Judge 

obviously has devoted considerable time to managing discovery in this protracted 

litigation, and nothing of record suggests that the District Judge has handled this 

regrettably challenging task in anything other than an even-handed way. (See, e.g., CMF 

Nos. 161, 213, 215.) We of course express no opinion on the merits of the District 

Court’s discovery rulings at this stage because, as we previously advised Ke, he can 

obtain relief in that regard if warranted on appeal from a final judgment. See In re Ke, 

2013 WL 3753612, at *5 (citing In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211, 219 (3d Cir. 

2003)).

For these reasons, Ke’s mandamus petition will be denied.