Case: 24-128 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 06/25/2024

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ In Re HEATHER CLARK, Petitioner ______________________ 2024-128 ______________________ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the Merit Sys- tems Protection Board in No. PH-1221-24-0032-W-1. ______________________ ON PETITION ______________________ Before STOLL, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

ORDER Heather Clark files a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting the court to direct the Merit Systems Protection Board to issue a final decision.

Ms. Clark filed a whistleblower individual right of ac- tion appeal with the Board on October 17, 2023. On Feb- ruary 13, 2024, the administrative judge issued an order denying Ms. Clark’s motion to dismiss based on alleged misconduct and directing the parties to address whether her resignation was voluntary. Ms. Clark then filed a pe- tition for review of that decision with this court, which was dismissed as premature, having been filed before any final Case: 24-128 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 06/25/2024

2 IN RE CLARK

decision from the Board. Ms. Clark now seeks a writ of mandamus to compel entry of a final decision from the Board.

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is only available where the petitioner shows: (1) a clear and indis- putable right to relief; (2) no adequate alternative avenue for relief; and (3) that mandamus is appropriate under the circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004). Ms. Clark has not shown that any de- lay in her Board appeal was contrary to law or otherwise “so extensive [as to be] immoderate or indefinite.” Groves v. McDonough, 34 F.4th 1074, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (cleaned up); see 5 U.S.C. § 706(1); Telecomms. Rsch. & Ac- tion Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Thus, we deny mandamus relief.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The petition is denied.

FOR THE COURT

June 25, 2024 Date