This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders in what appear to be pro se cases. One order denied a petition for a writ of mandamus, one ordered transfer to the Third Circuit, and one dismissed a petition based on lack of jurisdiction. Here is relevant text from the three orders.

In re Francis (Nonprecedential Order)

Addisa Jahrusalem Francis, aka Jacqueline Dennis, petitions for a writ of mandamus for an “All Writs remedy to complaint.” ECF No. 2 at 1. We consider whether Ms. Francis’ petition should be construed as a notice of appeal.

* * *

The petition is denied because the matter is treated as a timely notice of appeal consistent with Rule 4(d) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Clerk of the Court is directed to process the petition as such a notice.

In re Schnatter (Nonprecedential Order)

Melinda J. Schnatter petitions for a “writ of prohibition” to “review [her] entries” submitted to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. ECF No. 2 at 1. Ms. Schnatter also moves to modify the caption (ECF No. 6); to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 10); to correct her motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 12); “to add crucial details” to her petition (ECF No. 13); and to expedite briefing (ECF Nos. 16 and 21). Having considered the parties’ responses to its September 29, 2021 order to show cause, the court now transfers.

* * *

The petition and all transmittals are transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

In re Smith (Nonprecedential Order)

Franklin C. Smith petitions for writ of mandamus that appears to ask the court to direct public officials, including the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, “to perform the legal duties, or refrain from abusing their powers, which it has or refused to do.” ECF No. 2 at 1. Mr. Smith also files a submission entitled “cease and desist order” seeking to “immediately stop” the former Acting United States Attorney for the District of Columbia “from prosecuting U.S. Citizens at the Capitol on or about (January 6th[,] 2021).” ECF No. 7 at 1.

* * *

This court does not have original jurisdiction over Mr. Smith’s requests for relief. Nor do his submissions reference any agency or trial court action that would eventually be subject to this court’s limited jurisdiction on direct appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1295 that would give us authority to consider a mandamus request. We therefore dismiss.