In re INGRAHAM

Case: 26-138 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 05/22/2026

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ In Re MARK INGRAHAM, Petitioner ______________________ 2026-138 ______________________ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:26-cv-00475-TMD, Judge Thompson M. Dietz. ______________________ ON PETITION ______________________ PER CURIAM.

ORDER Mark Ingraham files a document entitled “Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Compel Clerk to Issue Summons,” ECF No. 2 at 1, stating the United States Court of Federal Claims “Clerk states defendant was already served . . . . Clerk should either confirm this or issue sum- mons,” id. at 2.

A petitioner seeking the extraordinary remedy of man- damus must show: (1) “no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires,” (2) a “clear and indisputable” right to relief, and (3) the writ is “appropriate under the circum- stances.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, Case: 26-138 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 05/22/2026

2 IN RE INGRAHAM

380–81 (2004) (cleaned up). Mr. Ingraham fails to meet this demanding standard. He has not shown clear entitle- ment to relief given that the Court of Federal Claims’s docket indicates service on the Department of Justice and the date on which the answer is due. See Docket Text for Dkt. No. 1 (“Copy Served Electronically on Department of Justice” and “Answer due by 5/28/2026”); see also RCFC 4 (describing the manner, proof, and date of service on the United States). 1 Nor has Mr. Ingraham demonstrated the inadequacy of an appeal following final judgment.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The petition is denied, and any pending motions are denied.

FOR THE COURT

May 22, 2026 Date

1 Note that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, re- garding summons, applies to United States district courts.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.