Lirong Xu v. Chief Judge Debra Todd, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 25-3280
__________
LIRONG XU,
Appellant
v.
CHIEF JUDGE DEBRA TODD, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania;
TUOMINEN ANDREA, Court Administrator of PA; DEPUTY STEVEN
ROTHERMEL, Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania;
CHIEF CLERK DAVIN HALLAND, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania;
MICHAEL F. KRIMMEL, Prothonotary Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-00439)
District Judge: Honorable Karoline Mehalchick
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
August 7, 2026
Before: KRAUSE, RESTREPO, and PORTER, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 11, 2026)
___________
OPINION*
___________
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM
In March 2025, Lirong Xu filed a pro se complaint in the District Court against the
Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and several Pennsylvania state court
administrators (“Appellees”). The complaint, which was not a model of clarity, appeared
to attack the Pennsylvania state courts’ handling of various lawsuits in which Xu had
been involved (Xu alleged, inter alia, that decisions in those cases had been fabricated).
Appellees subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Xu, meanwhile, filed multiple cross-motions for a
default judgment. Thereafter, a United States Magistrate Judge issued two reports,
recommending that the District Court (1) deny Xu’s motions and (2) grant Appellees’
motion. In support of those recommendations, the Magistrate Judge explained that there
was no default in this case, and that Xu’s claims were foreclosed by, inter alia, the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the doctrines of judicial and quasi-judicial immunity.
On October 3, 2025, the District Court adopted both reports and dismissed the
case with prejudice. And on October 23, 2025, the District Court denied Xu’s related
motion for reconsideration. This timely appeal followed.1
Xu’s 20-page appellate brief, liberally construed, does not challenge the basis for
the District Court’s denial of her motions for a default judgment, dismissal of her
complaint, or denial of her motion for reconsideration. Instead, the brief appears to
revolve around her contention that, for a myriad of reasons, the District Court
1 We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
proceedings were structurally defective. For example, Xu alleges that the District Court’s
decisions “do not bear authentic . . . CM/ECF-verified judicial signatures.” Xu’s Br. 16.
After careful consideration, we find no merit to Xu’s litany of arguments. See, e.g., In re
Xu, No. 24-2851, 2024 WL 4719249, at *1 (3d Cir. Nov. 8, 2024) (per curiam)
(explaining, in a mandamus action brought by Xu, that “we perceive no irregularity with
the [District Court’s] electronic signatures,” and that there is “no need to provide a
‘verification mechanism’”). And since she has not challenged the bases for the District
Court’s decisions, we deem any such challenge forfeited. See In re LTC Holdings, Inc.,
10 F.4th 177, 181 n.1 (3d Cir. 2021) (noting that “arguments not developed in an
appellant’s opening brief are forfeited” (citing In re Wettach, 811 F.3d 99, 115 (3d Cir.
2016))); see also Emerson v. Thiel Coll., 296 F.3d 184, 190 n.5 (3d Cir. 2002) (per
curiam) (applying this rule to a pro se appeal).
In view of the above, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.2 Appellees’
motion to be excused from filing a brief is granted.
2 Pending before us are more than two dozen motions from Xu that collectively seek a
long list of miscellaneous relief. None of those motions, the majority of which appear to
revolve around Xu’s complaints about our Clerk’s Office’s management of the docket for
this appeal, warrants any relief. All Xu’s pending motions are denied. To the extent that
Xu’s brief seeks any other relief from us, that relief is denied as well.

-- 3 of 3 --