This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders. The opinion comes in a pro se appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. One of the orders dismissed an appeal, while the other denied petitions for writs of mandamus, one in a patent case and one in a pro se case. Here are the introductions to the opinion and the denials of the petitions, along with a link to the dismissal.
Wright v. Collins (Precedential)
Paul Troy Wright is another veteran frustrated by lengthy delays in the resolution of his claims before the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”). He appeals pro se a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). That decision concerned Mr. Wright’s unadjudicated claims pending at the VA. The Veterans Court denied his request to issue an order granting him relief on the merits of his claims and to issue contempt sanctions on the Chair of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) for failure to resolve his claims. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
In re Miller Mendel, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Miller Mendel, Inc. and Tyler Miller (collectively, “MMI”) petition this court for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Alternatively, MMI asks this court to direct the Eastern District to dismiss certain of the asserted counts. Guardian Alliance Technologies, Inc. opposes. MMI replies. For the following reasons, we deny MMI’s petition.
In re Lopez (Nonprecedential Order)
Ricardo J. Calderon Lopez filed a complaint at the United States Court of Federal Claims along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). On July 24, 2025, the court denied the IFP motion because of his history of filing complaints that were frivolous or filed in a court that lacked jurisdiction and because the current complaint “suffers from similar deficiencies.” ECF No. 2 at 15. Mr. Lopez moved for reconsideration, which the court denied on August 28, 2025. On September 5, 2025, he filed this petition attaching a copy of the trial court’s August 28, 2025 order requiring him to pay the filing fee.