American Chiropractic Assoc v. American Specialty Health Inc

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL OPINION Coram: CHAGARES, HARDIMAN and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 15. Judge: SHWARTZ Authoring.

Case: 14-1832

Document: 003112071907

Page: 1

CLD-236

Date Filed: 09/11/2015

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 14-1823
___________
IN RE: LEI KE,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 2-11-cv-06708)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
April 24, 2014
Before: FUENTES, JORDAN and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 1, 2014)
_________
OPINION
_________

PER CURIAM
Lei Ke is the plaintiff in an ongoing suit seeking reinstatement to the Drexel
University College of Medicine, which he alleges wrongfully discharged him. The
parties are currently engaged in discovery. The mandamus petition at issue here is the
sixth proceeding, and the fourth mandamus petition, arising out of that litigation that Ke
has filed in this Court. Ke’s previous mandamus petitions requested, inter alia, that we

Case: 14-1832

Document: 003112071907

Page: 2

Date Filed: 09/11/2015

vacate certain of the District Court’s discovery orders and disqualify the District Judge.
We denied those petitions because the extraordinary writ of mandamus is not an
appropriate remedy for orders that can be reviewed on appeal from a final judgment and
because Ke’s mere continued dissatisfaction with the District Court’s rulings does not
state a basis to disqualify the District Judge. See, e.g., In re Ke, 538 F. App’x 129, 130
(3d Cir. 2013); In re Ke, 531 F. App’x 187, 189, 191-92 (3d Cir. 2013). We have also
reminded Ke twice that “‘we will not grant writs of mandamus to micromanage ongoing
proceedings in the District Court.’” In re Ke, 538 F. App’x at 130 (quoting In re Ke, 531
F. App’x at 192).
Ke’s present mandamus petition nevertheless seeks, once again, to vacate certain
of the District Court’s discovery orders and to disqualify the District Judge. (Ke also
requests that we order the District Court to reinstate John Fry as a defendant and allow
Ke to depose him, but that issue too can await review if necessary on appeal from the
final judgment.) This petition lacks merit, and we will deny it, for reasons we already
have amply explained.1 We note that Ke has not so much as acknowledged our previous

1

For example, the District Court’s discovery rulings addressed in its opinion of March
20, 2014 (ECF No. 451) neither require immediate review nor give rise to any appearance
of partiality. The District Court obviously has taken great pains to protect the
confidentiality of non-party students’ personal information while at the same time
fashioning a mechanism to provide Ke with certain discovery that he contends he needs
to prove his claims. We express no opinion on the merits of its rulings (which, once
again, can be reviewed if necessary on appeal from the final judgment), but they come
nowhere close to suggesting the kind of bias or hostility that Ke alleges. Ke’s continued
allegations in that regard are all the more troubling because the District Court obviously
2

Case: 14-1832

Document: 003112071907

Page: 3

Date Filed: 09/11/2015

rulings, let alone provided any explanation for why he believes that the principles applied
therein do not control his present mandamus petition as well. Ke is advised that any
mandamus petition he files in the future that suffers from the same deficiencies will be
summarily denied. Ke is further advised that, although we will not consider imposing
sanctions for his repeated filings at this time, we will not allow him to abuse this Court’s
process indefinitely.
For these reasons, Ke’s mandamus petition will be denied. Ke’s motion to
disqualify “opposing” counsel in this Court is denied as well.

has expended substantial time in managing this regrettably difficult litigation and
continues to do so both in an even-handed manner and with appropriate sensitivity to
Ke’s pro se status.
3