Case Information
*1 Case: 22-129 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 05/12/2022
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ In re: REBECCA GALLOGLY, Petitioner ______________________ 2022-129 ______________________ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:20-cv-00261-MCW, Senior Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams.
______________________ ON PETITION ______________________ P ER C URIAM .
O R D E R
On June 17, 2020, the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed Rebecca Gallogly’s case and entered judgment. The Court of Federal Claims subsequently de- nied all post-judgment motions on May 19, 2021. On March 10, 2022, Dr. Gallogly filed this petition challenging several of the Court of Federal Claims’ rulings and request- ing various relief in connection with her claims. The remedy of mandamus is available only in “excep- tional circumstances to correct a clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power.” In re Calmar, Inc. , 854 F.2d 461, 464 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). A party seeking a writ of mandamus bears the burden of *2 Case: 22-129 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 05/12/2022
2 IN RE : GALLOGLY demonstrating to the court that (1) there are no adequate alternative legal channels through which she may obtain that relief; (2) the petitioner has a clear and indisputable right to relief; and (3) the grant of mandamus is appropri- ate under the circumstances. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C. , 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004).
Dr. Gallogly has not met those requirements here. “Mandamus relief is not appropriate when a petitioner fails to seek relief through the normal appeal process.” In re Fermin , 859 F. App’x 904, 905 (Fed. Cir. 2021); see also In re Pollitz , 206 U.S. 323, 331 (1907) (“[M]andamus cannot . . . be used to perform the office of an appeal . . . .”). Be- cause Dr. Gallogly failed to raise her challenges to the de- cisions of the Court of Federal Claims by way of a timely filed direct appeal, we deny her request for mandamus. Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT : The petition is denied, and any pending motions are denied as moot.
F OR THE C OURT May 12, 2022 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court