Case: 24-130 Document: 28 Page: 1 Filed: 08/21/2024

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ In Re MARTIN AKERMAN, Petitioner ______________________ 2024-130 ______________________ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the Merit Sys- tems Protection Board in No. DC-1221-22-0257-S-1. ______________________ ON PETITION AND MOTION ______________________ Before LOURIE, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

ORDER Martin Akerman petitions this court for a writ of man- damus relating to alleged delays and violations of due pro- cess rights by the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Board opposes. Mr. Akerman separately objects to the cap- tion and moves for various relief, including to proceed in forma pauperis, to strike certain documents as erroneously filed, and a stay pursuant to Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, ECF No. 22.

The All Writs Act provides that federal courts “may is- sue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respec- tive jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and Case: 24-130 Document: 28 Page: 2 Filed: 08/21/2024

2 IN RE AKERMAN

principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only where the petitioner shows: (1) a clear and indisputable right to relief; (2) no ad- equate alternative avenue for relief; and (3) that manda- mus is appropriate under the circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380 81 (2004).

As an initial matter, to the extent Mr. Akerman seeks relief related to Akerman v. Department of the Army, No. DC-0752-22-0376-I-1, he has not shown this court has ju- risdiction to grant such relief. Mr. Akerman characterizes that matter as a “mixed case” appeal. Because this court lacks jurisdiction over “[c]ases of discrimination subject to the provisions of [5 U.S.C. §] 7702,” § 7703(b)(2), we would not have authority under the All Writs Act to issue a writ of mandamus “in aid of” our prospective jurisdiction. See Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 582 U.S. 420, 437 (2017); Diggs v. Dep’t of Hous. & Urb. Dev., 670 F.3d 1353, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the affirmative defense of re- taliation for prior equal employment opportunity activity “falls outside [of the court’s] jurisdictional reach”). 1 As to the other matters identified in Mr. Akerman’s fil- ings, it appears the Board has issued an initial or final de- cision in all but one of those matters, and Mr. Akerman has not shown why ordinary review processes before the Board or before this court are inadequate to raise any of his chal- lenges to those decisions. 2 As to the only identified matter

1 We reach the same conclusion as to Mr. Akerman’s assertions regarding unidentified “civil forfeiture” actions in Arizona, Arkansas, and Nevada, which would clearly be outside of this court’s limited jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295.

2 Indeed, the court has already received five peti- tions for review from Mr. Akerman for appeals listed in his Case: 24-130 Document: 28 Page: 3 Filed: 08/21/2024

IN RE AKERMAN 3

pending before the Board, filed on February 28, 2024, Aker- man v. Office of Personnel Management, No. DC-844E-24- 0359-I-1, Mr. Akerman has shown nothing of the sort of unreasonable delay courts have required in granting man- damus relief. See Groves v. McDonough, 34 F.4th 1074, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2022); see 5 U.S.C. § 706(1); Telecomms.

Rsch. & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The petition for a writ of mandamus is dismissed- in-part and denied-in-part. (2) The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, is granted. (3) The motion to delete ECF Nos. 6–8 is granted to the extent that those entries will be stricken from the docket. (4) All remaining motions are denied.

FOR THE COURT

August 21, 2024 Date

petition, docketed here as Appeal Nos. 2024-1912, 2024- 1913, 2024-1914, 2024-1915, and 2024-1926.