In Re KERRI S. KUHLMANN v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 1988 citation omitted . Thus, a

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re KERRI S. KUHLMANN,
Petitioner
______________________
2024-115
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the Merit Sys-
tems Protection Board in No. DC-1221-17-0437-W-1.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, T ARANTO and CHEN, Circuit
Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Kerri S. Kuhlmann petitions this court for a writ of
mandamus seeking review of the January 23, 2024 order of
the Merit Systems Protection Board. Ms. Kuhlmann also
moves to “add [the Board] as either primary or sole re-
spondent.” ECF No. 5 at 2.
On January 17, 2018, an administrative judge issued
an initial decision denying Ms. Kuhlmann’s individual
right of action appeal. She petitioned the full Board for re-
view. On January 23, 2024, the Board issued an order in-
forming Ms. Kuhlmann that, due to a recusal, “there is no
Case: 24-115 Document: 9 Page: 1 Filed: 02/28/2024

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE KUHLMANN 2
quorum,” and thus, by operation of 5 C.F.R. § 1200.3(b),*
the “initial decision now becomes the final decision of the
[Board].” ECF No. 2 at 41. Ms. Kuhlmann filed this peti-
tion on February 7, 2024.
Mandamus is “reserved for extraordinary situations.”
Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S.
271, 289 (1988) (citation omitted). Thus, a petitioner must
show that: (1) she has a clear and indisputable right to re-
lief; (2) she does not have any other adequate method of
obtaining relief; and (3) the “writ is appropriate under the
circumstances.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S.
367, 380–81 (2004) (citation omitted).
A party adversely affected by a final decision of the
Board may seek this court’s review by filing a petition for
review “within 60 days after the Board issues notice of the
final order or decision of the Board.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1).
The petition must, among other things, identify the party
seeking review and specify the order or part thereof to be
reviewed. Fed. R. App. P. 15(a). Ms. Kuhlmann’s petition
meets those requirements and would be timely if treated as
a petition for review.
Because pursuing a petition for review provides Ms.
Kuhlmann the ability to meaningfully challenge the
Board’s final decision, including the findings and conclu-
sions of the administrative judge and any challenge to the
handling of her petition for full Board review, we conclude
that the petition for a writ of mandamus should be con-
strued and treated as a timely petition for review and that
mandamus relief is not available. See Bankers Life & Cas.
* Section 1200.3(b) provides that when “Board mem-
bers are unable to decide any case by majority vote, the de-
cision . . . under review shall be deemed the final
decision . . . of the Board.”
Case: 24-115 Document: 9 Page: 2 Filed: 02/28/2024

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE KUHLMANN 3
Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 383 (1953) (stating “whatever
may be done without the writ may not be done with it”).
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The petition is denied because the matter is treated
as a timely petition for review. The Clerk of Court is di-
rected to process the petition as such.
(2) ECF No. 5 is denied.
(3) The Board shall file the certified list within 40 days
from the date the Clerk of Court dockets this matter as a
petition for review. From the date of service of the certified
list, Ms. Kuhlmann has 60 days to file her opening brief in
which she may challenge any aspect of the Board’s January
23, 2024 order as well as the administrative judge’s Janu-
ary 17, 2018 decision.
February 28, 2024
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 24-115 Document: 9 Page: 3 Filed: 02/28/2024

-- 3 of 3 --