Sandra Rumanek v. ( 2023 )

CLD-022 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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WL 18859515, at *1 (3d Cir. Nov. 4, 2022) (non-precedential order).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