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

PER CURIAM.

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 v

iolated 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 se

eking 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 lowa, 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).

Murphy fails to meet her burden of establishing the two requirements for mandamus. First, we are not persuaded that the

Court of Federal Claims erred in determining that Murphy's civil complaint was

actually a compiaint of judicial misconduct. 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 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:

(1) | Murphy's petition is denied. (2) Murphy's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot,

FOR THE COURT

FEB 6 2009

/s/ Jan Horbaly

me

Cee

OF Stephon ©.F ectn, Esa ,

FEB 06 2009

Misc. 891