Court Opinion

ID: 4511464
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-02-28 17:00:49.06399+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:15:20.663886
License: Public Domain

Case: 20-114    Document: 13      Page: 1    Filed: 02/28/2020

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

               In re: XIAOHUA HUANG,
                        Petitioner
                 ______________________

                         2020-114
                  ______________________

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:16-
cv-00947-JRG-RSP, Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.
                  ______________________

                      ON PETITION
                  ______________________

PER CURIAM.
                         ORDER
    Xiaohua Huang petitions this court for a writ of man-
damus directing the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas “to reverse the district court’s or-
der which dismissed case 2:16-cv-947.”
    Mr. Huang’s petition references two cases, which he
brought in the Eastern District of Texas, Huang v. Huawei
Technologies Co., Ltd., No. 2:15-cv-01413-JRG-RSP, and
Huang v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., No. 2:16-cv-
00947-JRG-RSP. Mr. Huang previously unsuccessfully ap-
pealed the final judgments in both of those cases. See
Huang v. Huawei Techs. Co., Nos. 2017-1505 et al., slip op.
Case: 20-114     Document: 13     Page: 2   Filed: 02/28/2020

2                                               IN RE: HUANG

at 13 (Fed. Cir. June 8, 2018); Huang v. Huawei Techs. Co.,
No. 2019-1726, slip op. at 6 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 9, 2019). Man-
dates in both have since issued.
    Mr. Huang’s petition is nothing more than an attempt
to relitigate the final judgments that he previously unsuc-
cessfully appealed. Because Mr. Huang clearly does not
have a right to the relief he seeks, the court must deny his
petition. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Co-
lumbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004).
      Accordingly,
      IT IS ORDERED THAT:
      (1) The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
      (2) All pending motions are denied as moot.
                                   FOR THE COURT

      February 28, 2020            /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
         Date                      Peter R. Marksteiner
                                   Clerk of Court

s24