Case Name: Stanley A. SLUPKOWSKI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF the UNITED STATES NAVY, General Counsel Department of Health and Human Services, and General Counsel Department of Veterans Affairs, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-02
Citations: 329 F. App'x 908
Docket Number: No. 2008-1561
Parties: Stanley A. SLUPKOWSKI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF the UNITED STATES NAVY, General Counsel Department of Health and Human Services, and General Counsel Department of Veterans Affairs, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, RADER and PROST, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 329
Pages: 908–908

Head Matter:
Stanley A. SLUPKOWSKI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF the UNITED STATES NAVY, General Counsel Department of Health and Human Services, and General Counsel Department of Veterans Affairs, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 2008-1561.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Dec. 2, 2008.
Stanley A. Slupkowski, Rochester, MN, pro se.
David A. Harrington, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, RADER and PROST, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ON MOTION
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Stanley A. Slupkowski responds to the court's order directing him to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Slupkowski also moves for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris and submits various documents requesting mandamus relief.
In the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Slupkowski filed a notice of appeal which appears to involve a district court order denying Slupkowski leave to file a document involving a request for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris and asserting a "civil complaint." Because Slupkowski stated that he sought review by this court, the district court transmitted the notice of appeal to this court.
Slupkowski has not shown that this court has jurisdiction over his appeal. He has not shown that the appeal falls within this court's jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1), (2). Additionally, Slupkowski has not shown that his requests for mandamus relief are within the jurisdiction of this court.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) This appeal is dismissed.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
(8) Slupkowski's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot.
(4) Slupkowski's requests for mandamus relief are denied.