in Re: Bishop Roxaen-Corpus-Christi v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 3d Cir. 1996 noting that “[i]f…

DLD-137 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 26-1592
___________
IN RE: BISHOP ROXAEN-CORPUS-CHRISTI
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Related to Civ. No. 4:26-cv-00275)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
May 21, 2026
Before: RESTREPO, PORTER, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed May 27, 2026)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Petitioner bishop roxaen-corpus-christi,1 proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for
a writ of mandamus. For the reasons below, we will deny the mandamus petition.
Petitioner instituted this action in the District Court by filing a “Sovereign Petition
and Injunction” asserting claims against dozens of named defendants, including President
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
1 Petitioner uses no capital letters in her name.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Donald Trump, Pope Leo XIV, and “all inhabitants in the realm of time, space, and
dimension.” Among other contentions, the petition contests the investigation of Petitioner
and her co-plaintiff by Colorado Children and Youth Services.
Petitioner filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) along with her
petition, but the Magistrate Judge denied the motion, noting that Petitioner’s motion
included language that was nonsensical, that Petitioner failed to fill out the proper
application to proceed IFP, and that Petitioner failed to pay the required fee.
Petitioner thereafter filed an emergency mandamus petition to this Court, urging
this Court to prompt the District Court to rule on her IFP application and arguing that the
order denying it constitutes unreasonable delay. Petitioner also claims that the District
Court delayed ruling on her request for an emergency injunction. Finally, Petitioner
argues generally regarding the contents of the Magistrate Judge’s order.
After Petitioner filed her mandamus petition, the District Court dismissed the
action without prejudice to Petitioner’s reopening the case by filing a proper IFP form or
paying the fees.
Petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief. To the extent Petitioner alleges that
the District Court has failed to rule on her filings, the Magistrate Judge has denied her
IFP application and the District Court has dismissed her action, so there is no effective
relief we can grant as to those allegations. See generally Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum
Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698–99 (3d Cir. 1996) (noting that “[i]f developments occur during
the course of adjudication that . . . prevent a court from being able to grant the requested
relief, the case must be dismissed as moot”). To the extent petitioner challenges any

-- 2 of 3 --

3
aspects of those rulings, she can raise those arguments via direct appeal, so mandamus is
not available. See In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211, 219 (3d Cir. 2003) (“If, in
effect, an appeal will lie, mandamus will not.”).
Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.

-- 3 of 3 --