Whether the Third Circuit Court can create a reason unsupported by the District Court Judge that the docket was mistakenly marked closed and rule administrative closure for the purpose of disregarding timely filed notice of appeal

QUESTIONS PRESENTED WHETHER THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT CAN CREATE A REASON UNSUPPORTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE THAT THE DOCKET WAS MISTAKENLY MARKED CLOSED AND RULE ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISREGARDING TIMELY FILED NOTICE OF APPEAL, WHEN THE . DISTRICT COURT NEVER ISSUED A RULING NOR NOTICE TO THE PARTIES THAT THE CASE WAS MISTAKENLY CLOSED OR AN ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR OCCURREDTHERE WAS NO EXPLANATION OF THE ALLEGED ERRORONLY NOTICE ON THE DOCKET THAT OPPOSING COUNSEL FILED A MOTION FEB. 16, 2021 AND Page 2 of 9 ; : WANTED THE COURT TO OR_OPPOSING. COLINSEL’S PERSONAL AD-~—_— -. ~*~ VANTAGE?” WHETHER THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT CAN REFUSE JURISDICTION OVER A FINAL DECISION OF A DISTRICT COURT ORDER WHOSE PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCE OF THE ORDER EFFECTIVELY TERMINATED THE CASE AND PUT ME THE APPELLANT OUT OF COURT? WHETHER JUDGES WITHWHOM JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN’ LEVIED AGAINST AND REMAIN PENDING BY THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL , BY THE PETITIONER/ APPELLANT IN A RELATED CASE, FOR PRIOR UNETHICAL AND PARTIAL CONDUCT THAT VIOLATES THE CANON’S OF JUDICIAL ETHICS BY THE PANEL OF JUDGES BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A RULING IN THIS CASE FOR WHICH OBJECTIVITY WAS ABSENT AND DISREGARDED? TIE! EDING ; Petitioner is SANDRA HARMON. : Respondents are DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE OF SUSSEX COUNTY; JASON ADKINS, individually and in his capacity as defense counsel for Sussex County Administration; SUSSEX COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT & APPEALS MEMBERS; DALE CALLAWAY, Chairman individually and in his capacity as Chairman; ELLEN MAGEE, individually and in her capacity as board member; J. BRUCE MEARS, individually and in his capacity as a board member; JOHN MILLS, individually and in his capacity as a board member; E. BRENT WORKMAN, individually and in his capacity as a board member; AND SUSSEX COUNTY ADMINISTRATION JURISDICTION The Third Circuit entered its decision on June 9, 2021. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 USC 1254(1) to review the Third Circuit’s decision on a writ of certiorari. : : STATUTORY PROVISION AT ISSUE 28 USC 1291 provides, in relevant part: “The court of appeals.shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States, .” Page 3 of 9 STATEMENT OF THE. CASE The Third Circuit Appeals Court panel erred when it concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over the final order of the district court in this case, and that the docket was mistakenly marked closed. Also, Third Circuit erred when it acted as a witness for the District Court stating that **,..Harmon argues that the District Court’s February 2, 2021 order was final, because the docket was mistakenly marked “closed” afterward. But “an administrative closure . . . has no jurisdictional significance” and “does not result in a final order,” when the district court never issued an order nor notice ruling or declaring that the case was terminated and closed in error to the Petitioner/ Appellant below-complainant, nor the respondent as noted by the district court’s own docket, prior to and after PetitionerAppellant below filed her timely notice of appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The only order issued by the district court was the order filed on February 2, 2021. The district court again never notified the parties that it nor its clerks made a mistake in closing the case. Opposing counsel never argued the point of an administrative error or a mistakenly closed case, It’s unknown how the Third Circuit concluded that the docket was mistakenly marked closed or that an administrative closure error occurred, when neither of the parties to the case presented this information as an argument to the Third Circuit, and the District Court Judge never sent out notice to the parties nor issued any type of order to support the findings derived at by the Third Circuit Court Panel. It appears as if misconduct is continuing, and Judges are not suppose to act as witnesses providing testimony that’s unknown to both parties and the