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 c

ase and moves for leave to proceed i

n forma

pauperis.

On May 9, 2008, Murphy filed a com

plaint in the United States Court of F

ederal

Claims alleging that six federal judges v

iolated her due process and constitution

al 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 o

f judicial

misconduct. This petition for writ of m

andamus followed.

The remedy of mandamus is availabl

e only in extraordinary situations to c

orrect a

clear abuse of discretion or usurpation

of judicial power. In re Calmer Inc., 8

54 F.2d

461, 464 (Fed. Cir. 1988). A party se

eking a writ bears the burden of prov

ing that it has

no other means of attaining the relie

f desired, Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court

for the

Southern Dist. of lowa, 490 U.S. 296

, 309 (1989), and that the right to is

suance 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 t

wo 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 tha

t 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 pau

peris 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