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 Scott, No. 09-M904 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2009)

Denied
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 09-M904
Decided
July 31, 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Nonprecedential Opinion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NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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. 904

IN RE ALPHONSO SCOTT,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans

Claims in case no. 98-1073, Judge Kenneth B. Kramer.

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Before MAYER, CLEVENGER, and RADER, Circuit Judges.

Figure on page 1 of the opinion

ORDER

Alphonso Scott petitions for a writ of mandamus to direct the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to reopen his case in Scott v. Principi, case no. 98-1073. Scott also moves for leave proceed in forma pauperis.

On June 1, 1998, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied Scott's claims for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. After various proceedings, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims entered final judgment on May 14, 2001, and issued its mandate on July 17, 2001. On November 20, 2008, Scott attempted to file a motion in his closed case. In correspondence dated February 9, 2009, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims returned Scott's motion and informed him that his case was closed in July of 2001 and he no longer had an appeal before that court. Scott then filed this petition for a writ of mandamus.

Figure on page 2 of the opinion

2The remedy of mandamus is available only in extraordinary situations to correct a clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power. In re Calmar, 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 Southem Dist, of lowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989), and that the right to issuance of the writ is “clear and indisputable,” Allied Chemical Com. v. Daifion, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980).

Based upon the papers submitted, Scott has not met his burden of showing entitlement to a writ. Specifically, Scott has not shown a clear abuse of discretion or usurpation ofj udicial power.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petition is denied. (2) Scott’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot.

FOR THE COURT

31 2009

L

JU /s/ Jan Horbaly

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk

cc: Alphonso Scott

Jeanne E. Davidson, Esq.

use. covuret:I LtEe

rag

820 JUL 31 2009

JAN HURBALY

CLERK

Misc. 904 -2-

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 Scott, No. 09-M904 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2009).

Record ID
CAFC-09-M904-20090731
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-09-M904-20090731

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.