NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
In Re FEI CAI,
Petitioner
2026-120
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:24-vv-01881-LAS, Senior Judge Loren A. Smith.
ON PETITION AND MOTION
Before STOLL, WALLACH, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit
Judges.
O R D E R
In the underlying Vaccine Act case, the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed Fei Cai’s motion to review the special master’s dismissal of her action after she failed to comply with the court’s page limits for such filings. Within 60 days of that order, she filed at this court a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the dismissal and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Although Ms. Cai’s petition is styled as a request for mandamus relief, we have discretion to consider whether
22 IN RE CAI
her filing constitutes a notice of appeal. See Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992). Here, the petition satisfies the general requirements for a notice of appeal under Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and would be timely if treated as a notice of appeal.1 We conclude that the petition should be construed as a direct appeal, and thus we also conclude mandamus relief is not appropriate. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989) (holding that a party seeking a writ bears the burden of proving that it has no other adequate means of attaining the relief, such as by appeal). As to Ms. Cai’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, no motion is necessary because she was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis before the Court of Federal Claims. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3); Fed. Cir. R. (a)(1)(C).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petition is denied. ECF No. 2 is treated as a timely notice of appeal in this matter. The Clerk of Court shall transfer this matter to the court’s normal appeals docket, and Ms. Cai’s opening brief is due within 60 days from the date of docketing.
3IN RE CAI 3
(2) The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied as moot.
FOR THE COURT
January 22, 2026 Date
Footnotes
- ↩ 1 Though the Court of Federal Claims stated the dismissal was without prejudice, the dismissal was involuntary, did not provide for leave to amend, and indicates intent to close the case, rendering it appealable. See H.R. Techs., Inc. v. Astetechnologies, Inc., 275 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2002).