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 Francis, No. 22-151 (Fed. Cir. June 28, 2022)

Denied
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 22-151
Decided
June 28, 2022
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Nonprecedential Opinion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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

for the Federal Circuit

In re: ADDISA JAHRUSALEM FRANCIS, aka

Jacqueline Dennis,

Petitioner

2022-151

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:20-cv-02081-MMS, Senior Judge Margaret M. Sweeney.

ON PETITION AND MOTION

O R D E R

Addisa Jahrusalem Francis petitions this court for “a writ of control to compel mandate in accordance with the judgment” of this court in Francis v. United States, Appeal No. 2022-1188. She also submits motions for “entry of default judgment” and an “order of supersedeas bond.”

Ms. Francis filed a complaint at the United States Court of Federal Claims primarily challenging her and her husband’s prior criminal conviction. The court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. On appeal, we

22 IN RE: FRANCIS

dismissed after concluding that Ms. Francis had failed to raise any non-frivolous challenge to the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims. This court subsequently denied her petition for en banc review and issued a mandate.

To the extent that Ms. Francis is seeking a writ of mandamus, such relief is appropriate only when the petitioner has demonstrated clear entitlement to the relief requested and no alternative means to obtain such relief. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. of D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004). Ms. Francis’s petition states that she seeks “release[] of Henry Francis [Ms. Francis’s husband] from United States Maximum Security [Penitentiary] and petitioner Addisa Jahrusalem Francis . . . held by Supervised Release.” Pet. at 13. This court has already explained to Ms. Francis why the Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction to grant such request. Under these circumstances, we must conclude that Ms. Francis is not entitled to the relief she seeks. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The petition is denied. (2) All pending motions are denied.

FOR THE COURT

June 28, 2022 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

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 Francis, No. 22-151 (Fed. Cir. June 28, 2022).

Record ID
CAFC-22-151-20220628
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-22-151-20220628

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.