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 Fermin, No. 21-174 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 24, 2021)

Denied
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 21-174
Decided
September 24, 2021
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Nonprecedential Opinion
Length
3 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

In re: FREDERICK C. FERMIN,

Petitioner

2021-174

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 18-6419, Senior Judge William A. Moorman.

ON PETITION AND MOTION

Before DYK, PROST, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

Frederick C. Fermin seeks “extraordinary relief pursuant to Local Rule 21(a),” ECF No. 2 at 1,* to compel the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to strike its August 31, 2020 order in his case. Mr. Fermin2 also moves for leave to supplement his “writ for extraordinary relief under Rule 21,” ECF No. 13. On January 28, 2020, the Veterans Court issued a decision affirming in part a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. In March 2020, Mr. Fermin appealed to this court. On August 4, 2020, this court dismissed Mr. Fermin’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. While his appeal was pending before this court, Mr. Fermin filed at the Veterans Court a motion to recall the judgment and to reconsider the January 28, 2020 decision. On August 31, 2020, the Veterans Court denied that motion. Mr. Fermin did not file a notice of appeal from that decision. Instead, on July 26, 2021, Mr. Fermin filed this petition at this court seeking to compel the Veterans Court to strike that order. Mandamus relief is not appropriate when a petitioner fails to seek relief through the normal appeal process. See Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S. 21, 26 (1943) (explaining that mandamus “may not appropriately be used merely as a substitute for the appeal procedure prescribed by the statute”); In re Pikulin, 243 F.3d 565 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (unpublished table decision) (denying a petition for writ of mandamus because the petitioner “had sixty days after the entry of judgment” to file an appeal and “did not do so”). Because Mr. Fermin here failed to seek review of the Veterans Court’s order by way of a timely filed direct appeal, we must deny his request for this extraordinary relief. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion for leave to supplement is granted to the extent that ECF No. 13 is accepted for filing as a supplement to Mr. Fermin’s petition, ECF No. 2.

3(2) The petition, ECF No. 2, is denied.

FOR THE COURT

September 24, 2021 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

s32

Footnotes

  1. * Federal Circuit Rule 21 authorizes parties to file writs of mandamus and prohibition and other extraordinary writs.

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 Fermin, No. 21-174 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 24, 2021).

Record ID
CAFC-21-174-20210924
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-21-174-20210924

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.