In re Johnson, No. 26-137 (Fed. Cir. June 10, 2026)

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Carl Edward Johnson files a petition for a writ of mandamus and “motion for order to show cause” regarding pending claims for benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs.¹ ECF No. 2 at 4. Among other things, he2 asserts improper withholding of agency records, improper splitting of his claims into “fragmented ‘docketed s[h]eets’,” and allowing the filing of an unauthorized brief. Id. He seeks, inter alia, to compel the consolidation of the record, correct his dockets, and immediately execute a remand order.

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and may only issue if petitioner has shown a “clear and indisputable” right to relief and that there are “no other adequate means” to attain the relief desired—“a condition designed to ensure that the writ will not be used as a substitute for the regular appeals process.” Love v. McDonough, 100 F.4th 1388, 1393 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (quoting Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004)). Mr. Johnson has not met this demanding standard at least because he has not shown that mandamus is the only adequate means to obtain relief. He can seek relief at the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and from this court by regular appeal, if warranted, after the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims issues a decision. And, to the extent Mr. Johnson has sought such relief, he has not shown that any delay in handling his cases has been so egregious as to warrant mandamus relief. Accordingly,

3IT IS ORDERED THAT:

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

FOR THE COURT

June 10, 2026 Date