In Re: Wallace ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            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    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential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 Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
    HPS-13                                                        NOT PRECEDENTIAL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., 
    747 F.2d 863
     (3d Cir. 1984).
    Wallace has appealed from that order. See C.A. 05-5216.
    Thus, we will dismiss this mandamus petition as moot.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-4934

Filed Date: 1/4/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021