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 Clark, No. 24-128 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2024)

Denied
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 24-128
Decided
June 25, 2024
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Nonprecedential Opinion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NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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 HEATHER CLARK,

Petitioner

2024-128

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. PH-1221-24-0032-W-1.

ON PETITION

Before STOLL, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

Heather Clark files a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting the court to direct the Merit Systems Protection Board to issue a final decision.

Ms. Clark filed a whistleblower individual right of action appeal with the Board on October 17, 2023. On February 13, 2024, the administrative judge issued an order denying Ms. Clark’s motion to dismiss based on alleged misconduct and directing the parties to address whether her resignation was voluntary. Ms. Clark then filed a petition for review of that decision with this court, which was dismissed as premature, having been filed before any final

22 IN RE CLARK

decision from the Board. Ms. Clark now seeks a writ of mandamus to compel entry of a final decision from the Board.

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is only available where the petitioner shows: (1) a clear and indisputable right to relief; (2) no adequate alternative avenue for relief; and (3) that mandamus is appropriate under the circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004). Ms. Clark has not shown that any delay in her Board appeal was contrary to law or otherwise “so extensive [as to be] immoderate or indefinite.” Groves v. McDonough, 34 F.4th 1074, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (cleaned up); see 5 U.S.C. § 706(1); Telecomms. Rsch. & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Thus, we deny mandamus relief.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition is denied.

FOR THE COURT

Figure on page 2 of the opinion

June 25, 2024 Date

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 Clark, No. 24-128 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2024).

Record ID
CAFC-24-128-20240625
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-24-128-20240625

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.