Court Opinion

ID: 9556181
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-16 15:01:08.621784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:01.203348
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-134    Document: 16     Page: 1    Filed: 08/16/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                In re: AMY R. GURVEY,
                        Petitioner
                 ______________________

                         2023-134
                  ______________________

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York in No.
1:06-cv-01202-LGS-HBP, Judge Lorna G. Schofield.
                  ______________________

                      ON PETITION
                  ______________________

PER CURIAM.
                        ORDER
    Amy R. Gurvey petitions for a writ of mandamus to
“disqualif[y]” the magistrate judge and district court judge,
vacate the district court’s orders “retroactive to 2012,” and
direct that her case be transferred. ECF No. 2-1 at 21–22.
    The district court entered final judgment against Ms.
Gurvey in 2017. She appealed to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which affirmed in 2018.
In 2020 and 2021, the district court denied Ms. Gurvey’s
requests to vacate the judgment. We transferred her ap-
peals from those rulings (and her associated petition for a
writ of mandamus) to the Second Circuit, which dismissed
Case: 23-134    Document: 16      Page: 2    Filed: 08/16/2023

2                                               IN RE: GURVEY

them. In 2022, the district court entered an anti-filing in-
junction against Ms. Gurvey. This petition appears to arise
out of Ms. Gurvey’s recent attempts to file submissions at
the district court seeking disqualification and vacatur of
the prior rulings, which have been returned to her unadju-
dicated.
    The All Writs Act provides that the federal courts “may
issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their re-
spective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and prin-
ciples of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). As that statute makes
clear, however, the Act is not itself a grant of jurisdiction.
See Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 534–35 (1999). As
we have repeatedly explained to Ms. Gurvey, we do not
have jurisdiction over her case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295. Un-
der the circumstances, we dismiss, having concluded that
it would not be in the interest of justice to transfer to the
Second Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
    Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    The petition is dismissed.
                                        FOR THE COURT

August 16, 2023                         /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
    Date                                Jarrett B. Perlow
                                        Clerk of Court