Case Name: In re Joel L. BELING, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-04
Citations: 562 F. App'x 984
Docket Number: No. 2014-135
Parties: In re Joel L. BELING, Petitioner.
Judges: Before NEWMAN, RADER, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 562
Pages: 984–985

Head Matter:
In re Joel L. BELING, Petitioner.
No. 2014-135.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
June 4, 2014.
Rehearing En Banc Denied July 22, 2014.
Before NEWMAN, RADER, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ON PETITION
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Joel L. Beling's petition for writ of mandamus and "petition for a writ of certiora-ri" relate to ongoing proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB"). Beling's petitions ask this court for various relief, including to direct the TTAB to reopen discovery, to "create new laws" based on the proposals he suggested before the TTAB, to review his requests for disqualification, and to refund certain fees he paid. In addition, Beling moves to stay proceedings before the TTAB pending this court's decision on the writ and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
The remedy of mandamus is available only in extraordinary situations to correct a clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power. In re Calmar, Inc., 854 F.2d 461, 464 (Fed.Cir.1988). A party seeking a writ bears the burden of proving that it has no other means of securing the relief desired, Mallard v. United States District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 309, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 104 L.Ed.2d 318 (1989), and that the right to issuance of the writ is "clear and indisputable," Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980).
In this present case, Beling has not demonstrated a clear and indisputable right to relief. In addition, proceedings are ongoing before the TTAB, and Beling can seek further review at the conclusion of such proceedings. See 15 U.S.C. § 1071. As to many of the issues raised, Beling has not shown that any alleged error could not be reviewed through the ordinary process.
Accordingly,
It Is Ordered That:
(1) The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
(2) The motion for stay is denied.
(3) The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
(4) To the extent that Beling's petition seeks en banc review, he should file a timely petition for rehearing en banc.