in Re: Sandra Rumanek v. Republic of Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1422 3d Cir. 1991 . To repeat that…

ALD-129 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 24-1634
___________
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. No. 1:17-cv-00123 & D. Del. Civ. No. 1:12-cv-00759)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
May 23, 2024
Before: HARDIMAN, MONTGOMERY-REEVES, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: June 5, 2024)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Sandra Rumanek again petitions for a writ of mandamus to challenge rulings by
the District Court in closed employment and civil-rights cases in which she is enjoined
from filing anything new. See Pet. at 20 (“Justice requires the Court grant Rumanek’s
petition, vacate the courts’ prior rulings in these matters, and order and/or direct
* 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 2 --

2
judgment for Rumanek on all claims . . .”). In an earlier opinion, we explained to
Rumanek that mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary
circumstances, that it is not a substitute for an appeal, and that Rumanek had not satisfied
the standard for obtaining mandamus relief. See In re Rumanek, C.A. No. 23-2724, 2023
WL 7410370, at *1 (3d Cir. Nov. 9, 2023) (per curiam) (citing, among other decisions, In
re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005), and Westinghouse
Elec. Corp. v. Republic of Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1422 (3d Cir. 1991)). To repeat
that explanation is to provide sufficient grounds to reject Rumanek’s current mandamus
petition. And on the topic of repetition: Rumanek is now instructed for the third—and
final—time that “further meritless appellate filings will result in monetary sanctions.” Id.
(quoting Rumanek v. Indep. Sch. Mgmt. Inc., CA No. 22-2541, 2022 WL 18859515, at
*1 (3d Cir. Nov. 4, 2022) (non-precedential order)). With that said, the current
mandamus petition will be denied.

-- 2 of 2 --