This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and nine nonprecedential orders. The opinion upheld a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Notably, one of the orders denies a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order the Western District of Texas to transfer a patent case to the Northern District of California. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.
McClure v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Nonprecedential)
Nathaniel R. McClure petitions for review of a Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) final order upholding the initial decision denying his request for corrective action. McClure v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., Nos. DE-4324-16-0220-I-1, DE-1221-16-0219-W-1, 2023 WL 1860684 (M.S.P.B. Feb. 9, 2023) (“Final Order”); McClure v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., Nos. DE-4324-16-0220-I-1, DE-1221-16-0219-W-1, 2016 WL 3881323 (M.S.P.B. July 11, 2016) (“Initial Decision”). For the reasons below, we affirm.
Butler v. United States Postal Service (Nonprecedential Order)
The United States Postal Service moves to dismiss this petition as premature or, alternatively, to reform the caption as to the proper respondent. ECF No. 5. Ikia Butler opposes.
Harris v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential Order)
In response to this court’s show cause order, the Merit Systems Protection Board urges summary affirmance. Tiffany Harris requests transfer to the Supreme Court.
In re Apple Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Apple Inc. seeks a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to transfer this patent infringement action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Resonant Systems, Inc. opposes.
In re Akerman (Nonprecedential Order)
Martin Akerman petitions this court for a writ of mandamus relating to alleged delays and violations of due process rights by the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Board opposes. Mr. Akerman separately objects to the caption and moves for various relief, including to proceed in forma pauperis, to strike certain documents as erroneously filed, and a stay pursuant to Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, ECF No. 22.
Kotsis v. Department of Transportation (Nonprecedential Order)
Gabriel Kotsis filed an appeal at the Merit Systems Protection Board challenging his removal and raising, among other things, affirmative defenses of disability discrimination and reprisal for engaging in Equal Employment Opportunity activity. The Board’s final decision affirmed. Mr. Kotsis petitioned this court for review, and his filings indicate that he wishes to continue to pursue his discrimination and retaliation claims. The agency moves to waive Federal Circuit Rule 27(f) and dismiss or transfer this matter. Mr. Kotsis has not filed a response to the motion.
Lee v. Social Security Administration (Nonprecedential Order)
Danny Lee filed an appeal at the Merit Systems Protection Board challenging his resignation as involuntary due to, among other things, discrimination. The Board’s final decision dismissed the appeal. Mr. Lee petitioned this court for review, and his filings indicate that he wishes to continue to pursue his discrimination claims. See ECF No. 4. Responding to this court’s show cause order, the Social Security Administration urges transfer. Mr. Lee’s response appears to argue the merits of his appeal and requests that “this court accept [his] appeal.” ECF No. 10- 1 at 19.
Lopez v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)
In response to this court’s July 2, 2024 show cause order, the United States argues for dismissal, ECF No. 7, and Ricardo Jose Calderon Lopez appears to urge this court to assert jurisdiction, ECF No. 5.
Mertens v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential Order)
In response to this court’s July 2, 2024 show cause order, the Merit Systems Protection Board argues this case should be dismissed or transferred. Kevin Mertens appears to argue the merits of his case, ECF Nos. 21 and 22, and also moves to stay proceedings pending appeal, ECF No. 14, to file a replacement informal opening brief, ECF No. 12, and for various other relief from this court and the Board, ECF No. 20.
Saphilom v. Newrez LLC (Nonprecedential Order)
Keolattana Tootoo Saphilom appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing her complaint in this foreclosure action. She moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The appellees move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Ms. Saphilom responds, asking “this court to deny [the] motion to dismiss,” to “transfer to the appropriate jurisdiction if this jurisdiction is not appropriate,” and to grant a “stay pending appeal.” ECF No. 19 at 3.