In re: ANDREW SEARCY, JR v. Dep’t of Agric., 557 F. App’x 975 Fed. Cir. 2014 affirming the Board’s August 5,…

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In re: ANDREW SEARCY, JR.,
Petitioner
______________________
2019-117
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the Merit Sys-
tems Protection Board in No. AT-4324-10-0356-B-1.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Andrew Searcy, Jr. petitions for a writ of mandamus.
Mr. Searcy has an extensive history of pursuing his
claims under the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 at the Merit Systems
Protection Board and this court. See, e.g., In re Searcy, No.
2018-156 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 24, 2018); In re Searcy, 572 F.
App’x 986 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Searcy v. Dep’t of Agric., 557 F.
App’x 975 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (affirming the Board’s August 5,
2013 decision); Searcy v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 486 F. App’x
117 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
As pertinent here, in August 2013, the Board dismissed
Mr. Searcy’s USERRA appeal on res judicata grounds.
Case: 19-117 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 04/30/2019

-- 1 of 4 --

IN RE: SEARCY 2
This court affirmed that decision in February 2014.
Shortly thereafter, Mr. Searcy filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus asking this court to order the Board to reopen
his USERRA case. This court denied that petition based
on the court’s February 2014 prior judgment.
In July 2018, this court affirmed a Board decision to
deny Mr. Searcy’s attempts to again reopen the Board’s fi-
nal August 2013 decision. Mr. Searcy then again peti-
tioned for a writ of mandamus. Because that petition
“simply express[ed] disagreement with the prior decisions
of the Board and this court dismissing his claims and find-
ing no circumstances to warrant reopening his prior ap-
peals,” the court denied the petition, warning Mr. Searcy
that:
This is now Mr. Searcy’s second frivolous pe-
tition seeking to challenge a final decision on
the merits by way of mandamus soon after
this court already had rejected his arguments
on direct appeal. Mr. Searcy is warned to
cease this abuse of the judicial process or risk
the court entering an injunction against him
requiring him to seek leave of court before fil-
ing any new submission.
Searcy, No. 2018-156, slip op. at 2.
Mr. Searcy’s current petition again seeks for this court
to revisit the Board’s already appealed and finally-closed
decisions. As we previously explained to Mr. Searcy, such
requests amount to an abuse of the judicial process. In
light of this court’s prior warning to Mr. Searcy, we direct
him to show cause why he should not be enjoined from fil-
ing any application for relief other than a petition for re-
view from a final Board decision unless such application is
accompanied by a motion for leave to file such application
which states supporting grounds for the filing.
Case: 19-117 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 04/30/2019

-- 2 of 4 --

IN RE: SEARCY 3
To the extent that Mr. Searcy is also seeking manda-
mus relief to compel the full Board to take action on one of
his pending cases, such relief is not appropriate. A writ of
mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal. Roche v.
Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S. 21, 26 (1943). Moreover,
if Mr. Searcy seeks to proceed before this court, he has an
alternative means of obtaining that relief by filing a motion
asking the Clerk of the Board to withdraw his petition for
review at the full Board.*
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
(2) All pending motions are denied as moot.
(3) Within 14 days from the date of filing of this order,
Mr. Searcy is directed to show cause why he should not be
subject to a requirement that he seek leave before filing
any new submission with the court.
F OR THE COURT
April 30, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
s31
* Pursuant to the May 2018 policy specified on the
Board’s website, the Clerk of the Board may grant requests
to withdraw a petition for review when there is no apparent
issue of untimeliness of the petition and no other party ob-
jects to the withdrawal. When the Clerk grants a request
to withdraw, the order granting the request will be the fi-
nal order of the Board for purposes of obtaining review.
Case: 19-117 Document: 8 Page: 3 Filed: 04/30/2019

-- 3 of 4 --

IN RE: SEARCY 4
Case: 19-117 Document: 8 Page: 4 Filed: 04/30/2019

-- 4 of 4 --