Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 19 views

    Not Precedential

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Lorna Kellam. The court denied Kellam's petition, finding that: (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kellam's application to proceed in forma pauperis based on her stated income; and (2) the district court properly referred the case to the bankruptcy court as related to Kellam's ongoing bankruptcy proceedings, per the district court's standing order of reference. The court concluded that Kellam did not establish a clear and indisputable right to mandamus relief.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Not Precedential

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    19 views3 pages
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Lorna Kellam. The court denied Kellam's petition, finding that: (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kellam's application to proceed in forma pauperis based on her stated income; and (2) the district court properly referred the case to the bankruptcy court as related to Kellam's ongoing bankruptcy proceedings, per the district court's standing order of reference. The court concluded that Kellam did not establish a clear and indisputable right to mandamus relief.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-01-15 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-3406

    Original Title

    Lorna Kellam v., 3rd Cir. (2016)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Lorna Kellam. The court denied Kellam's petition, finding that: (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kellam's application to proceed in forma pauperis based on her stated income; and (2) the district court properly referred the case to the bankruptcy court as related to Kellam's ongoing bankruptcy proceedings, per the district court's standing order of reference. The court concluded that Kellam did not establish a clear and indisputable right to mandamus relief.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    19 views3 pages

    Not Precedential

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Lorna Kellam. The court denied Kellam's petition, finding that: (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kellam's application to proceed in forma pauperis based on her stated income; and (2) the district court properly referred the case to the bankruptcy court as related to Kellam's ongoing bankruptcy proceedings, per the district court's standing order of reference. The court concluded that Kellam did not establish a clear and indisputable right to mandamus relief.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 3

    ALD-077

    NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 15-3406
    ___________
    IN RE: LORNA KELLAM,
    Petitioner
    ____________________________________
    On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus from the
    United States District Court for the District of Delaware
    (Related to D.C. Civ. No. 1-15-cv-00802)
    District Judge: Honorable Leonard P. Stark
    ____________________________________
    Submitted pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
    December 10, 2015
    Before: AMBRO, SHWARTZ and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion filed: January 15, 2016)
    _________
    OPINION*
    _________

    PER CURIAM
    Lorna Kellam, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), has filed a
    petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that this Court vacate the District Courts
    order denying her IFP application and referring her case to the United States Bankruptcy
    Court. For the following reasons, we will deny the requested relief.
    *

    This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
    constitute binding precedent.

    In September 2015, Kellam filed a motion to proceed IFP and a notice of removal
    before the District Court. Although Kellam initially stated that she wanted the District
    Court to exercise jurisdiction over a state court action, her removal notice made clear that
    she sought to remove an action that was proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy
    Court. Kellams motion to proceed IFP stated that her monthly income was $1400, and
    that her monthly expenses were $1106.50.
    On September 21, 2015, the District Court issued an order that: (1) denied
    Kellams IFP motion based on her annual income; and (2) referred the matter to the
    United States Bankruptcy Court as related to In re: Lorna Kellam, Debtor, D. Del. Bankr.
    No. 15-11235-BLS based on the District Courts Amended Standing Order of Reference.1
    Kellam then filed the current petition for a writ of mandamus. She requests that this
    Court vacate the District Courts order, which she states violated her rights.
    Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in the most extraordinary situations.
    In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). As preconditions
    to the issuance of the writ, the petitioner must establish that the writ will not be used as a
    substitute for the regular appeals process, that there is no alternative remedy or other
    adequate means to obtain the relief desired, and that the right to relief is clear and

    The Amended Standing Order of Reference is based on 28 U.S.C. 157(a), and in


    relevant part provides that any or all cases under Title 11 and any or all proceedings
    arising under Title 11 or arising in or related to a case under Title 11 are referred to the
    bankruptcy judges for this district.
    2

    indisputable. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996), superseded in part on
    other grounds by 3d Cir. L.A.R. 24.1(c). Kellams petition does not meet these
    requirements.
    First, the District Court has discretion to determine whether to grant IFP, see
    United States v. Holiday, 436 F.2d 1079, 1079 (3d Cir. 1971), and Kellam has made no
    argument that the District Court abused its discretion by determining that she was not
    eligible to proceed IFP due to her finances, see Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080,
    1084 n.5 (3d Cir. 1995) (stating that leave to proceed IFP is based on a showing of
    indigence). Second, Kellam has not demonstrated that the District Court abused its
    discretion by referring the case to the Bankruptcy Court as related to her proceedings
    before that court. See In re Resorts Intl, Inc., 372 F.3d 154, 162 (3d Cir. 2004) (The
    district courts power to refer is discretionary, but courts routinely refer most bankruptcy
    cases to the bankruptcy court.) (quotation marks omitted); 28 U.S.C. 157. Kellam
    argues that the District Courts referral to the Bankruptcy Court was improper because it
    was based on the denial of her IFP application and because the District Court did not
    engage in any fact finding. These arguments do not establish a clear and indisputable
    right to relief, and instead represent a misreading of the orderwhich was based on the
    Amended Standing Orderand the law.
    Kellam has thus not satisfied the standard for obtaining mandamus, and her
    petition is denied.
    3

    You might also like