Court Opinion

ID: 9896182
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 18:00:38.623123+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:12.303093
License: Public Domain

CLD-022                                                        NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                       No. 23-2724
                                       ___________

                            IN RE: SANDRA RUMANEK,
                                                Petitioner
                       ____________________________________

                      On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
                United States District Court for the District of Delaware
             (Related to D. Del. Civ. Nos. 1:17-cv-00123 &. 1:12-cv-00759)
                       ____________________________________

                    Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
                                 November 2, 2023
             Before: KRAUSE, FREEMAN, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

                            (Opinion filed: November 9, 2023)
                                        _________

                                        OPINION *
                                        _________
PER CURIAM

       Sandra Rumanek lost an employment suit at trial and we affirmed the judgment on

appeal. See Rumanek v. Indep. Sch. Mgmt., Inc., 619 F. App’x 71, 80 (3d Cir. 2015) (per

curiam). Years of unsuccessful post-judgment litigation culminated in the District Court’s

enjoining Rumanek from further filings in the case. See Rumanek v. Indep. Sch. Mgmt.,

Inc., DC Civ. No. 1:12-cv-00759, ECF No. 250 (D. Del. Aug. 12, 2022). We affirmed

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
that filing injunction. See Rumanek v. Indep. Sch. Mgmt. Inc., CA No. 22-2541, 2022

WL 18859515, at *1 (3d Cir. Nov. 4, 2022) (non-precedential order).

       Separately, Rumanek lost a civil rights action when the District Court granted

several dispositive motions. There, as in the employment action, the District Court

imposed a filing injunction after a flood of unsuccessful post-judgment motions by

Rumanek. See Rumanek v. Fallon, DC Civ. No. 1:17-cv-00123, ECF No. 174 (D. Del.

May 20, 2022). We affirmed that filing injunction. See Rumanek v. Fallon, CA No. 22-

2020, 2022 WL 16707070, at *1 (3d Cir. Nov. 4, 2022) (per curiam). 1

       The injunctions prompted Rumanek to file the pro se mandamus petition now

before us. See Pet. 4 (“Rumanek has no further recourse in the district court as she cannot

file further motions in that court.”). In her petition, Rumanek requests that we address in

the employment action a recusal issue that was already resolved against her, see

Rumanek v. Indep. Sch. Mgmt. Inc., 744 F. App’x 43, 46 (3d Cir. 2018) (per curiam)

(“[W]e conclude that any error by Judge Fallon in failing to self-disqualify was

harmless.”), and a purported immunity issue in the civil rights action that she could have

raised on appeal of the District Court’s judgment had she timely filed an appeal, cf.

Rumanek v. Fallon, CA No. 19-2290, Doc. 48 (3d Cir. Feb. 11, 2020) (non-precedential

order) (dismissing untimely appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction); Rumanek v. Fallon,

CA No. 19-2289, Doc. 53 (3d Cir. Feb. 6, 2020) (non-precedential order) (same).

1
 Both the May 20 and August 12, 2022 filing injunctions were imposed after we vacated
earlier ones on procedural grounds. See Rumanek v. Indep. Sch. Mgmt. Inc., No. 21-
1349, 2021 WL 5917102, at *2 (3d Cir. Dec. 15, 2021) (per curiam); Rumanek v. Fallon,
CA No. 21-1348, 2021 WL 5917097, at *3 (3d Cir. Dec. 15, 2021) (per curiam).
                                             2
          Ultimately, Rumanek does not come close to satisfying the criteria for mandamus

relief. See Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) (“Before a writ

of mandamus may issue, a party must establish that (1) no other adequate means [exist] to

attain the relief he desires, (2) the party’s right to issuance of the writ is clear and

indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.”) (citation and

internal quotations omitted); see also In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372,

378 (3d Cir. 2005) (explaining that mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in

extraordinary circumstances); Oracare DPO, Inc. v. Merin, 972 F.2d 519, 523 (3d Cir.

1992) (“Of course, we will not hold that Fortunato now lacks adequate alternative means

to obtain the relief he seeks simply because he allowed the time for an appeal to

expire.”); Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Republic of Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1422 (3d

Cir. 1991) (explaining that mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal).

Accordingly, her petition will be denied. Rumanek is reminded “that further meritless

appellate filings will result in monetary sanctions.” Rumanek v. Indep. Sch. Mgmt. Inc.,

CA No. 22-2541, 2022 WL 18859515, at *1 (3d Cir. Nov. 4, 2022) (non-precedential

order).

                                                3