CLD-022 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.,

(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,

, at *1 (3d Cir. Nov. 4, 2022) (non-precedential order).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

, 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.,

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Rumanek v. Fallon, CA No. 19-2290, Doc. 48 (3d Cir. Feb. 11, 2020) (non-precedential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

, at *2 (3d Cir. Dec. 15, 2021) (per curiam); Rumanek v. Fallon, CA No. 21-1348,

, 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,

(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.,

,

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

extraordinary circumstances); Oracare DPO, Inc. v. Merin,

(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,

, 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,

, at *1 (3d Cir. Nov. 4, 2022) (non-precedential

order).

3