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Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential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HPS-13 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.