Court Opinion

ID: 9375935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-01 15:02:47.774879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:02.932071
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-110     Document: 9    Page: 1    Filed: 03/01/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

  United States Court of Appeals
      for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

            In re: NORMAN ALAN KERR,
                        Petitioner
                 ______________________

                         2023-110
                  ______________________

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina in
No. 1:09-cr-00290-NCT, Senior Judge N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.
                  ______________________

               ON PETITION AND MOTION
                  ______________________

PER CURIAM.
                        ORDER
    Norman Alan Kerr petitions for mandamus and moves
to proceed in forma pauperis and for leave to file a brief in
support of his petition.
    Mr. Kerr’s petition appears to be challenging his crim-
inal conviction. His submissions include correspondence
with the Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector
General and the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit concerning his conviction. And his petition
asks to compel the “Federal Bureau” and “Director of Ad-
ministration of the Courts” to “perform their dut[ies].”
Case: 23-110        Document: 9   Page: 2    Filed: 03/01/2023

2                                                  IN RE: KERR

     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). And
although 28 U.S.C. § 1361, cited by Mr. Kerr, provides that
“[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any
action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or
employee of the United States or any agency thereof to per-
form a duty owed to the plaintiff” (emphasis added), we are
not a district court. Because Mr. Kerr’s petition has not
otherwise identified any matter that could fall within this
appellate court’s limited jurisdiction, we have no jurisdic-
tion to consider his mandamus request.
     Accordingly,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     (1) The petition is dismissed.
     (2) All pending motions are denied.
                                      FOR THE COURT

    March 1, 2023                     /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
        Date                          Peter R. Marksteiner
                                      Clerk of Court