Case: 25-116 Document: 3 Page: 1 Filed: 01/27/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In Re DANIEL A. BERGER, Petitioner ______________________

2025-116 ______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:24-cv-01991-KCD, Judge Kathryn C. Davis. ______________________

ON PETITION ______________________

Before LOURIE, MAYER, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER Daniel A. Berger petitions this court for a writ of man- damus relating to his pending case before the United States Court of Federal Claims. We deny the petition. On December 2, 2024, Mr. Berger filed a complaint at the Court of Federal Claims seeking, among other things, to “compel any and all of the various officers comprising the government of the United States to take affirmative ac- tion . . . to ensure that a Constitutionally disabled person does not enter upon the Execution of the Office of Presi- dent.” Compl. at 11 (emphasis omitted). On Case: 25-116 Document: 3 Page: 2 Filed: 01/27/2025

2 IN RE BERGER

December 4, 2024, Mr. Berger filed a motion seeking, among other things, access to the court’s electronic filing system. On January 2, 2025, Mr. Berger filed this petition seek- ing a writ of mandamus to compel the Court of Federal Claims to provide him “full electronic access to the Court’s docket and filing system” and to bring “within the jurisdic- tion of that tribunal the named Defendants,” id. at 2, which Mr. Berger states include the United States President, Vice President, and Speaker of the House, id. at 3–4, by providing an order “specifically authorizing” him “to enter upon the business premises and of the named Defendants and any such Government property, for the limited pur- poses of effectuating service,” id. at 4. On January 6, 2025, the Court of Federal Claims is- sued two orders relevant to this petition. In the first order, the court granted Mr. Berger’s request “to file via the ECF system.” Dkt. No. 9 at 1. In the second order, the court denied Mr. Berger’s motion of January 3, 2025, requesting authorization to enter the premises of the above-identified officials to serve them his complaint, explaining that the only proper defendant in that court is the United States, which has already been served the complaint by the Clerk of that court. Dkt. No. 10 at 1. A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and may only issue if three requirements are met: (1) the peti- tioner has no other adequate means to attain the relief de- sired; (2) the petitioner must show a clear and indisputable right to the requested relief; and (3) the court must be con- vinced to exercise its discretion to issue the writ. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004). Mr. Berger’s petition fails to satisfy these requirements. Mr. Berger’s request to compel the trial court to permit him access to that court’s electronic filing system is now moot. As to his requests to compel the appearance of high- level government officials in this case and permit him to Case: 25-116 Document: 3 Page: 3 Filed: 01/27/2025

IN RE BERGER 3

enter the premises of these officials to effect service of pro- cess, his petition fails to show the inadequacy of appeal af- ter final judgment or any clear and indisputable right to the requested relief, see Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“The Tucker Act grants the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over suits against the United States, not against individual federal officials.”). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The petition is denied. FOR THE COURT

January 27, 2025 Date