Clara Paciulete v.

── Clara Paciulete v. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: May 27, 2026 Category: General BLD-099 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 26-1193 ___________ IN RE: CLARA C. PACIULETE, Petitioner ____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for District of New Jersey (Related to Civ No. 1:25-cv-18043) ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. March 19, 2026 Before: KRAUSE, MATEY, and BOVE, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: May 27, 2026) _________ OPINION * _________ PER CURIAM Clara Paciulete has filed a petition for mandamus relief. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition. In November 2025, Paciulete filed a mandamus petition in the District Court. She alleged that the Clerk of the District Court had refused to accept her motion for * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. emergency injunctive relief. She requested that the District Court order the Clerk to docket her motion. That same day, the Clerk docketed her motion as received. By order entered December 9, 2025, the District Court dismissed the writ of mandamus without prejudice for failure to state a claim. The District Court acknowledged that Paciulete’s emergency motion was styled as a complaint and asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It then declared that it could not accept or address her motion because she had not properly initiated the action by filing a complaint. Paciulete did not file a notice of appeal. In February 2026, Paciulete filed in this Court an “Emergency Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (28 U.S.C. § 2241) and a Writ of Mandamus (28 U.S.C. § 1361).” She alleged an extensive conspiracy against her and her child since 2022 by several persons and institutions including family members, law enforcement, courts, hospitals, and school personnel. She sought habeas relief, mandamus relief, a restraining order, appointment of counsel, a federal investigation, and sanctions. Paciulete seeks habeas relief in the form of an injunction against any unlawful detention, forced commitment, or removal of her child. A habeas petition must be filed in the District Court in the first instance. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(a); Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 660-61 (1996) (explaining that Rule 22(a) “bar[s] consideration of original habeas petitions in the courts of appeals”). Moreover, while Paciulete alleges that there have been attempts to involuntarily commit her for psychiatric treatment, she does not allege that she is currently in custody and is not entitled to habeas relief based on any 2 speculative future confinement. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 700 (3d Cir. 1996); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c) (providing that one seeking habeas relief must be in custody). As for mandamus relief, she requests that (1) the District Court vacate its December 5, 2025 order and grant the emergency relief she had requested; (2) law enforcement agencies cease responding to false 911 calls; (3) hospitals delete fraudulent mental health reports; and (4) the school district conduct a proper interview of her child and provide services required by the Individuals with Disabilities Edu