In Re: Meyers

Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-13-2007
In Re: Meyers
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-1182
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Meyers " (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1487.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1487
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 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
ALD-136 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 07-1182
________________
IN RE: PATRICIA A. MEYERS,
Petitioner
__________________
On Petition for Writ of Prohibition from the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
(Related to D. Del. Civ. No. 06-cv-00455)
__________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. Pro.
February 23, 2007
Before: Sloviter, Chagares and Nygaard, Circuit Judges
(Filed: March 13, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Patricia Meyers, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of prohibition
alleging that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware improperly held a trial in a
case she removed to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. For the
reasons that follow, we will deny Meyers’ petition.
Steven Krebs filed a complaint against Meyers in the Court of Chancery seeking a
determination that a lease he had entered into with Meyers was a binding contract, and
that he was entitled to quiet enjoyment of the leased premises. Meyers filed an answer to
the complaint, which was also signed by Dennis Smith, her “attorney-in-fact.” Because
Smith was not a licensed attorney, the Chancellor of the Court of Chancery notified
Meyers that Smith may not represent her. Meyers then removed the complaint to District
Court. The District Court granted Krebs’ motion to remand the complaint to state court,
and Meyers filed a notice of appeal from the remand order.
Meyers’ petition for a writ of prohibition is for the most part unclear. She appears
to allege that the Court of Chancery improperly held a trial in Krebs’ action against her
while her appeal of the District Court’s remand order was pending in this Court. To the
extent Meyers seeks an order from this Court prohibiting the Court of Chancery from
taking some action, we lack jurisdiction to so order. See In re Campbell, 264 F.3d 730,
731 (7th Cir. 2001) (stating that the court of appeals generally cannot use its power to
issue mandamus to a state judicial officer to control or interfere with state court
litigation).
In addition, to the extent Meyers seeks review of the District Court’s remand
order, a writ of prohibition is not an appropriate remedy because Meyers may obtain
relief through an ordinary appeal. See In re Sch. Asbestos Litig., 921 F.2d 1310, 1314
(3d Cir. 1990). As noted, Meyers filed a notice of appeal from the District Court’s
remand order. Meyers’ appeal was docketed at C.A. No. 06-4873, and we shall issue a
separate opinion deciding that appeal.
Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of prohibition.
2