In Re AKERMAN

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

In Re AKERMAN

Opinion

Case: 24-146 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 10/24/2024

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In Re MARTIN AKERMAN Petitioner ______________________

2024-146 ______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the Merit Sys- tems Protection Board in No. DC-0752-22-0376-I-1. ______________________

ON PETITION ______________________

PER CURIAM. ORDER Martin Akerman petitions for a writ of mandamus to compel the Merit Systems Protection Board to take certain action in his Board appeal, No. DC-0752-22-0376-I-1, in which he purportedly raises “claims of due process viola- tions, discrimination, and retaliation.” Pet. at 3. The All Writs Act authorizes courts to issue writs “nec- essary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdic- tions.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Because “[t]he All Writs Act is not an independent basis of jurisdiction, . . . the petitioner must initially show that the action sought to be corrected by mandamus is within this court’s statutorily defined Case: 24-146 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 10/24/2024

2 IN RE AKERMAN

subject matter jurisdiction.” Baker Perkins, Inc. v. Werner & Pfleiderer Corp., 710 F.2d 1561, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Although our jurisdiction includes authority to review certain final decisions of the Board, it does not include au- thority to review “[c]ases of discrimination subject to the provisions of [5 U.S.C. §] 7702,” § 7703(b)(2)—cases involv- ing allegations that an action appealable to the Board was based on covered discrimination, § 7702. Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 582 U.S. 420, 437 (2017). Mr. Akerman as- serts this is such a “mixed case[].” Pet. at 6. Because this court would not have jurisdiction over a petition for review from the underlying Board appeal here, we likewise lack jurisdiction to consider his petition for mandamus. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The petition for a writ of mandamus is dismissed. (2) All remaining motions are denied. FOR THE COURT

October 24, 2024 Date

Reference

Status
Unpublished