Case: 22-151 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 06/28/2022

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: ADDISA JAHRUSALEM FRANCIS, aka Jacqueline Dennis, Petitioner ______________________

2022-151 ______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:20-cv-02081-MMS, Senior Judge Margaret M. Sweeney. ______________________

ON PETITION AND MOTION ______________________

PER CURIAM. ORDER Addisa Jahrusalem Francis petitions this court for “a writ of control to compel mandate in accordance with the judgment” of this court in Francis v. United States, Appeal No. 2022-1188. She also submits motions for “entry of de- fault judgment” and an “order of supersedeas bond.” Ms. Francis filed a complaint at the United States Court of Federal Claims primarily challenging her and her husband’s prior criminal conviction. The court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. On appeal, we Case: 22-151 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 06/28/2022

2 IN RE: FRANCIS

dismissed after concluding that Ms. Francis had failed to raise any non-frivolous challenge to the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims. This court subsequently denied her petition for en banc review and issued a mandate. To the extent that Ms. Francis is seeking a writ of man- damus, such relief is appropriate only when the petitioner has demonstrated clear entitlement to the relief requested and no alternative means to obtain such relief. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. of D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004). Ms. Francis’s petition states that she seeks “release[] of Henry Francis [Ms. Francis’s husband] from United States Maxi- mum Security [Penitentiary] and petitioner Addisa Jahrusalem Francis . . . held by Supervised Release.” Pet. at 13. This court has already explained to Ms. Francis why the Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction to grant such request. Under these circumstances, we must con- clude that Ms. Francis is not entitled to the relief she seeks. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The petition is denied. (2) All pending motions are denied. FOR THE COURT

June 28, 2022 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court