Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

1-4-2006

In Re: Wallace Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 05-4934

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006

Recommended Citation "In Re: Wallace " (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1792. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1792

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 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HPS-13 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

NO. 05-4934 ________________

IN RE: MARGARET WALLACE, Petitioner. ____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Related to Civ. No. 04-cv-00819) _____________________________________

Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. December 16, 2005 BEFORE: SCIRICA, CHIEF JUDGE, WEIS and GARTH, CIRCUIT JUDGES

(Filed: January 4, 2006) _______________________

OPINION _______________________

PER CURIAM.

Margaret Wallace asks that we issue a writ of mandamus directing

Honorable R. Barclay Surrick to recuse himself because he has failed to rule on alleged

attorney fraud that Wallace has documented in the record. Wallace additionally asks this

Court to adjudicate the issues of attorney fraud she presented to the District Court. For

the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition.

1 The District Court dismissed Wallace’s Complaint on November 18, 2005,

pursuant to Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.,

(3d Cir. 1984).

Wallace has appealed from that order. See C.A. 05-5216.

Thus, we will dismiss this mandamus petition as moot.