Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

In re Murphy, No. 09-M891 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 6, 2009)

Denied
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 09-M891
Decided
February 6, 2009
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Nonprecedential Opinion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Miscellaneous Docket No. 891

IN RE CAROL A. MURPHY,

Petitioner.

On Writ of Mandamus from the United States Court of Federal Claims in case no. 08-

CV-343, Judge Lynn J. Bush.

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Before GAJARSA, LINN, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

Figure on page 1 of the opinion

ORDER

Carol A. Murphy petitions for a writ of mandamus to compel the United States Court of Federal Claims to hear her case and moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

On May 9, 2008, Murphy filed a complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims alleging that six federal judges violated her due process and constitutional rights in their rulings in her cases. On May 29, 2008, the court removed her case from the court and referred it to the court's chief judge for consideration as a complaint of judicial misconduct. This petition for writ of mandamus followed.

The remedy of mandamus is available only in extraordinary situations to correct a clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power. In re Calmer, Inc., 854 F.2d 461, 464 (Fed. Cir. 1988). A party seeking a writ bears the burden of proving that it has no other means of attaining the relief desired, Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Southern Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989), and that the right to issuance of the2 writ is "clear and indisputable." Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980).

Figure on page 2 of the opinion

Murphy fails to meet her burden of establishing the two requirements for mandamus.(cid:9) First, we are not persuaded that the Court of Federal Claims erred in determining(cid:9) that Murphy's civil complaint was actually a complaint of judicial misconduct.(cid:9) Therefore, Murphy has not shown that her right to a particular result is clear and indisputable. Allied Chemical, 449 U.S. at 35. Second, because Murphy could have(cid:9) pursued her dispute through an ordinary appeal, she is unable to demonstrate that she had no alternative means of obtaining the relief requested.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
Murphy's petition is denied. Murphy's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot.

FOR THE COURT

FEB 6 2009

/s/ Jan Horbalv

Date Jan Horbaly

FILED

Clerk U.S.

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT cc:(cid:9) Carol A. Murphy

n FEB 6 2009 Stephen C. Tosini, Esq.

int s20

Misc. 891

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

In re Murphy, No. 09-M891 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 6, 2009).

Record ID
CAFC-09-M891-20090206
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-09-M891-20090206

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.