Case ID: f-appx_447/html/0225-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re Michael Ben GRAVES, Petitioner.
    Misc. Nos. 988, 991.
    United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
    Nov. 16, 2011.
    Before BRYSON, SCHALL, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
   ON PETITION

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

In the two above-captioned matters, Michael Ben Graves petitions for a writ of mandamus to vacate all “void” orders of the Merit Systems Protection Board and to provide discovery to Graves.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy reserved for extraordinary situations. See Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 34, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980). “The federal courts traditionally have used the writ only ‘to confíne an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.’ ” Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289, 108 S.Ct. 1133, 99 L.Ed.2d 296 (1988) (quoting Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S. 21, 26, 63 S.Ct. 938, 87 L.Ed. 1185 (1943)). The burden is on the petitioner to establish that his right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, Allied, 449 U.S. at 35, 101 S.Ct. 188, and that there is no other adequate remedy to attain the desired relief. Mallard v. United States District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 309, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 104 L.Ed.2d 318(1989).

Graves has not shown that he has no other adequate remedy to attain the desired relief, i.e., he has not shown that he could not raise issues concerning his requests for discovery within any timely petition for review to this court from a final Board decision. Instead, he makes only general assertions that he was denied discovery. We deny his petitions for writs of mandamus.

Accordingly,

It is Ordered that:

The petitions for writs of mandamus are denied.