Case: 24-124 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 05/28/2024

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In Re KRISS MICHELE PERRAS, Petitioner ______________________

2024-124 ______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 24-1892. ______________________

ON PETITION ______________________

Before LOURIE, DYK, and REYNA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER Kriss Michele Perras seeks a “Writ of Supersedeas Im- mediate stay of August 18, 2022 DB order,” ECF No. 2 at 1, which we understand as seeking mandamus relief. On March 23, 2024, Ms. Perras filed an appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ap- pearing to seek review of, among other things, an August 2022 Order of Behavioral Restriction issued to Ms. Perras by the Chief of Staff of the VA Southern Nevada Healthcare System. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs has moved to dismiss that appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which remains pending. Case: 24-124 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 05/28/2024

2 IN RE PERRAS

Federal courts “may issue all writs necessary or appro- priate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). “In general, three conditions must be satisfied for a writ to issue: (1) the petitioner must demonstrate a clear and in- disputable right to issuance of the writ; (2) the petitioner must have no other adequate method of attaining the de- sired relief; and (3) the court must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004)). Ms. Perras has not demonstrated entitlement to man- damus relief. She currently has an appeal pending before the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims challenging the same order. To the extent that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and by extension this court, have juris- diction to review such orders, such proceedings provide an adequate means by which Ms. Perras can obtain relief. And to the extent that such jurisdiction is lacking, Ms. Per- ras has no clear and indisputable right to relief here. Fi- nally, if Ms. Perras seeks to have this court issue a writ directing the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to issue such a final decision, we cannot say that she has shown egregious delay or that issuance of a writ is appropriate. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The petition and all pending motions are denied. FOR THE COURT

May 28, 2024 Date