This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions: one in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board and one in a veterans case. Additionally, the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.
Pak v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Nonprecedential)
Mr. Jae Pak appeals from the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) excluding his witnesses and evidence, and denying his individual right of action (“IRA”) appeal claiming that the Department of Veterans Affairs (“DVA”) engaged in prohibited conduct when it allegedly terminated him in retaliation for his alleged protected whistleblowing activities. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the final judgment of the MSPB.
Teter v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)
Dennis W. Teter appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) in Dennis W. Teter v. Robert L. Wilkie, No. 18-1297, 2019 WL 2363311 (Vet. App. June 5, 2019). In its decision, the Veterans Court affirmed the November 30, 2017 decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) that denied Mr. Teter entitlement to an initial increased disability rating for post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), with panic disorder and agoraphobia in excess of 30 percent, before August 3, 2012. J.A. 128. For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
In re Raghubir (Nonprecedential Order)
Vinodh Raghubir files a “Petition for Writ of Prohibition and/or Mandamus” from the August 28, 2020 decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 2. Mr. Raghubir also moves to waive fees and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 5 and 6. The United States opposes the motion to waive the docketing fee and moves for summary affirmance. ECF No. 9.
Mr. Raghubir, who is currently incarcerated in a Florida state prison, filed the underlying complaint at the Court of Federal Claims, alleging a conspiracy among state and federal judges and officials to imprison him, false imprisonment, and denial of his civil rights. On August 28, 2020, the Court of Federal Claims sua sponte dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. On October 15, 2020, Mr. Raghubir filed this petition.
We must deny Mr. Raghubir’s petition. A party seeking a writ of mandamus or prohibition bears the burden of demonstrating to the court that it has no “adequate alternative” means to obtain the desired relief, Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989), and that the right to issuance of the writ is “clear and indisputable,” Will v. Calvert Fire Ins., 437 U.S. 655, 666 (1978) (internal quotation marks omitted). Mr. Raghubir has not established a clear and indisputable right to relief or that a direct appeal from the judgment would not be an adequate remedy.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition and all pending motions are dismissed.