In Re MARTIN AKERMAN v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380 81 2004 . As an initial matter, to the…

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re MARTIN AKERMAN,
Petitioner
______________________
2024-130
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the Merit Sys-
tems Protection Board in No. DC-1221-22-0257-S-1.
______________________
ON PETITION AND MOTION
______________________
Before L OURIE, C UNNINGHAM , and STARK, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Martin Akerman petitions this court for a writ of man-
damus relating to alleged delays and violations of due pro-
cess rights by the Merit Systems Protection Board. The
Board opposes. Mr. Akerman separately objects to the cap-
tion and moves for various relief, including to proceed in
forma pauperis, to strike certain documents as erroneously
filed, and a stay pursuant to Rule 18 of the Federal Rules
of Appellate Procedure, ECF No. 22.
The All Writs Act provides that federal courts “may is-
sue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respec-
tive jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and
Case: 24-130 Document: 28 Page: 1 Filed: 08/21/2024

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE AKERMAN 2
principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Mandamus is an
extraordinary remedy available only where the petitioner
shows: (1) a clear and indisputable right to relief; (2) no ad-
equate alternative avenue for relief; and (3) that manda-
mus is appropriate under the circumstances. Cheney v.
U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380 81 (2004).
As an initial matter, to the extent Mr. Akerman seeks
relief related to Akerman v. Department of the Army, No.
DC-0752-22-0376-I-1, he has not shown this court has ju-
risdiction to grant such relief. Mr. Akerman characterizes
that matter as a “mixed case” appeal. Because this court
lacks jurisdiction over “[c]ases of discrimination subject to
the provisions of [5 U.S.C. §] 7702,” § 7703(b)(2), we would
not have authority under the All Writs Act to issue a writ
of mandamus “in aid of” our prospective jurisdiction. See
Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 582 U.S. 420, 437 (2017);
Diggs v. Dep’t of Hous. & Urb. Dev., 670 F.3d 1353, 1357
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the affirmative defense of re-
taliation for prior equal employment opportunity activity
“falls outside [of the court’s] jurisdictional reach”).1
As to the other matters identified in Mr. Akerman’s fil-
ings, it appears the Board has issued an initial or final de-
cision in all but one of those matters, and Mr. Akerman has
not shown why ordinary review processes before the Board
or before this court are inadequate to raise any of his chal-
lenges to those decisions.2 As to the only identified matter
1 We reach the same conclusion as to Mr. Akerman’s
assertions regarding unidentified “civil forfeiture” actions
in Arizona, Arkansas, and Nevada, which would clearly be
outside of this court’s limited jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295.
2 Indeed, the court has already received five peti-
tions for review from Mr. Akerman for appeals listed in his
Case: 24-130 Document: 28 Page: 2 Filed: 08/21/2024

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE AKERMAN 3
pending before the Board, filed on February 28, 2024, Aker-
man v. Office of Personnel Management, No. DC-844E-24-
0359-I-1, Mr. Akerman has shown nothing of the sort of
unreasonable delay courts have required in granting man-
damus relief. See Groves v. McDonough, 34 F.4th 1074,
1080 (Fed. Cir. 2022); see 5 U.S.C. § 706(1); Telecomms.
Rsch. & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The petition for a writ of mandamus is dismissed-
in-part and denied-in-part.
(2) The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
is granted.
(3) The motion to delete ECF Nos. 6–8 is granted to
the extent that those entries will be stricken from the
docket.
(4) All remaining motions are denied.
August 21, 2024
Date
F OR THE COURT
petition, docketed here as Appeal Nos. 2024-1912, 2024-
1913, 2024-1914, 2024-1915, and 2024-1926.
Case: 24-130 Document: 28 Page: 3 Filed: 08/21/2024

-- 3 of 3 --