Opinions

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and four nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion comes in a government contract case on appeal from the Court of Federal Claims. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a case on appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Of the nonprecedential orders, one grants a motion for a summary affirmance, one denies a petition for a writ of mandamus, and two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and first two orders, as well as links to the dismissals.

27-35 Jackson Ave LLC v. United States (Precedential)

The owner of real estate in New York City, 27-35 Jackson Avenue LLC (“Jackson”), appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“the Claims Court”). That court granted summary judgment to the United States, holding that the government did not breach its lease agreement with Jackson when it terminated the agreement after finding the leased property to be untenantable. We affirm.

Naye v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)

Assahn Naye applied to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to be hired as a Border Patrol Agent. DHS made him a tentative offer of employment, contingent on the successful completion of several pre-employment requirements, but later determined that Mr. Naye was unsuitable for the position and withdrew the offer. Mr. Naye appealed DHS’s decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board, which dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Naye v. Department of Homeland Security, No. AT-0731- 24-0205-I-1, 2024 WL 1754027, at 1–4 (M.S.P.B. Feb. 1, 2024) (Decision). Mr. Naye now appeals the Board’s decision to us. We affirm.

Nwosu v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)

The United States moves to summarily affirm the final judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing Adaeze Nwosu’s complaint. Ms. Nwosu moves for summary reversal and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We grant the United States’s motion.

In re Akerman (Nonprecedential Order)

Martin Akerman, I, petitions this court for a writ of mandamus to compel the Merit Systems Protection Board to take certain action in his Board appeals, Nos. DC-1221- 22-0257-W-2 and DC-1221-22-0445-W-2. Mr. Akerman also moves for various relief, including to hold this matter “in abeyance for 180 days” so that other of his cases may “proceed to resolution.” ECF No. 15 at 4.

Mr. Akerman’s petition seeks to compel the Board to rule on his stay requests and to document a status conference held with the administrative judge. The All Writs Act provides that federal courts “may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only where the petitioner shows: (1) a clear and indisputable right to relief; (2) no adequate alternative avenue for relief; and (3) that mandamus is appropriate under the circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004). At a minimum, Mr. Akerman has not shown a clear and indisputable right to the relief requested. We thus deny mandamus relief.

Dismissals