Opinion
2022-159
09-14-2022
In re: WENDELL W. PHILLIPS, Petitioner
This order is nonprecedential.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:17-cv-00968-LKG, Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby.
ON PETITION
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
On November 13, 2017, the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed Wendell W. Phillips' case and entered judgment. The Court of Federal Claims subsequently denied Mr. Phillips' post-judgment motions on January 19, 2018 and July 30, 2020, and then stopped accepting filings. On August 4, 2022, Mr. Phillips filed this petition, seeking to "remand this case back to the United States Court of Federal Claims to correct this matter and settle this matter." Pet. at 26.
The remedy of mandamus is available only in "exceptional circumstances to correct a clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power." In re Calmar, Inc., 854 F.2d 461, 464 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). A party seeking a writ of mandamus bears the burden of demonstrating to the court that (1) he has a clear and indisputable right to relief; (2) there are no adequate alternative legal channels through which he may obtain that relief; and (3) the grant of mandamus is appropriate under the circumstances. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004).
Mr. Phillips has not met those requirements here. Generally, "[m]andamus relief is not appropriate when a petitioner fails to seek relief through the normal appeal process." In re Fermin, 859 Fed.Appx. 904, 905 (Fed. Cir. 2021); see also Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n, 319 U.S. 21, 26 (1943) (finding that mandamus "may not appropriately be used merely as a substitute for the appeal procedure"); In re Pollitz, 206 U.S. 323, 331 (1907) ("[M]andamus cannot . . . be used to perform the office of an appeal ...."). Be cause Mr. Phillips failed to timely raise his challenges on appeal, mandamus is not appropriate.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition is denied.