In Re HARRY CONNER, Designated Beneficiary & Sole Heir of Mary Conner Nelson deceased v. USPS, No. 24-6155, slip op. at 1 6th Cir. Apr. 2, 2025 . Mr. Conner now petitions…

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re HARRY CONNER, Designated Beneficiary &
Sole Heir of Mary Conner Nelson (deceased),
Petitioner
______________________
2025-122
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee in No.
2:11-cv-02476-JTF-cgc, Senior Judge John Thomas
Fowlkes, Jr.
______________________
ON PETITION AND MOTION
______________________
Before P ROST , WALLACH , and T ARANTO, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Harry Conner petitions for a writ of mandamus direct-
ing the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Tennessee to transfer this matter to the United
States Court of Federal Claims. Mr. Conner also moves to
proceed in forma pauperis.
In 2011, Mr. Conner filed suit in the Western District
of Tennessee, seeking in excess of $10,000 under the Fed-
eral Employees’ Group Life Insurance Act. In April 2014,
Case: 25-122 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 04/28/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE CONNER 2
the district court entered judgment dismissing the case.
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit affirmed. Mr. Conner subsequently sought relief
from the judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district
court’s denial of that relief in 2017.
Several years later, in July 2024, Mr. Conner moved
the district court to transfer the matter to the Court of Fed-
eral Claims. The district court denied the motion. Mr.
Conner filed a notice of appeal from the order that was
docketed at the Sixth Circuit, which subsequently dis-
missed the appeal for failure to prosecute. Conner v.
USPS, No. 24-6155, slip op. at 1 (6th Cir. Apr. 2, 2025). Mr.
Conner now petitions this court for a writ of mandamus to
direct transfer of the case to the Court of Federal Claims.
The All Writs Act authorizes courts to issue writs “nec-
essary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdic-
tions.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Mandamus is available only in
extraordinary situations where a petitioner has no other
adequate means of obtaining the relief desired, the right to
issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and the
court, in its discretion, finds that a writ would be appropri-
ate under the circumstances. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct.
for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004).
This court’s jurisdiction to review decisions of the fed-
eral courts either on direct appeal or on mandamus gener-
ally extends only to patent cases, see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1);
civil actions on review to the district court from the United
States Patent and Trademark Office, see § 1295(a)(4)(C); or
certain damages claims against the United States “not ex-
ceeding $10,000 in amount,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), see 28
U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2). Mr. Conner’s case is none of those.
And although this court generally has jurisdiction over
an “interlocutory order of a district court . . . granting or
denying, in whole or in part, a motion to transfer an action
to the United States Court of Federal Claims,” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(d)(4), there is nothing interlocutory about the
Case: 25-122 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 04/28/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE CONNER 3
district court’s order here denying transfer. The case is
over: final judgment already has been entered on the mer-
its and the Sixth Circuit has affirmed. Under such circum-
stances, Mr. Conner’s entitlement to a writ of mandamus
directing transfer is not clear and indisputable.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petition and all pending motions are denied.
April 28, 2025
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 25-122 Document: 10 Page: 3 Filed: 04/28/2025

-- 3 of 3 --