In Re RICHARD K. KATSIGIANIS, as executor of Richard Kosmas Katsigianis Trust v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 366, 380-81 2004 cleaned up . Mr. Katsigianis has…

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re RICHARD K. KATSIGIANIS, as executor of
Richard Kosmas Katsigianis Trust,
Petitioner
______________________
2025-145
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:25-cv-01126-RTH, Judge
Ryan T. Holte.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before LOURIE, PROST, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Richard K. Katsigianis petitions for a writ of manda-
mus seeking to compel the United States Court of Federal
Claims to take various actions, including entry of default
judgment in his favor. We deny the petition.
After reviewing his complaint, the Court of Federal
Claims directed Mr. Katsigianis to show cause why the
case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Mr. Katsigianis responded and separately filed a “motion
to record conditional settlement offer and preserve federal
Case: 25-145 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 09/11/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE KATSIGIANIS 2
rights under active claim,” Dkt. No. 7 at 1. On Au-
gust 6, 2025, the court set the deadline for the govern-
ment’s answer to the complaint or responsive briefing to
the show cause order for October 6, 2025.
Mr. Katsigianis subsequently filed various motions, in-
cluding for immediate entry of default judgment, but cer-
tain filings were rejected for failure to comply with the
court’s rules. Mr. Katsigianis then filed this petition,
which we have jurisdiction to review under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1295(a)(3), 1651, seeking to strike the August 6, 2025
order, docket his pending enforcement filings, and enter de-
fault judgment.
To obtain the extraordinary remedy of mandamus, a
petitioner must show: (1) there is “no other adequate
means to attain the relief” requested; (2) “issuance of the
writ is clear and indisputable;” and (3) “the writ is appro-
priate under the circumstances.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct.
for D.C., 542 U.S. 366, 380–81 (2004) (cleaned up).
Mr. Katsigianis has not satisfied that standard here.
As to default judgment: under the rules of the Court of
Federal Claims (“RCFC”), default is entered where a party
“has failed to plead or otherwise defend” and default judg-
ment may then be entered only “if the claimant establishes
a claim or right to relief by evidence that satisfies the
court.” RCFC 55(a), (b)(2). Mr. Katsigianis’s petition fails
to demonstrate either, let alone both. And as to his chal-
lenges to the court’s scheduling order, rejection of non-com-
pliant documents, and other actions, he likewise has not
demonstrated clear entitlement to relief or that mandamus
is the only adequate means to obtain relief.
Accordingly,
Case: 25-145 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 09/11/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE KATSIGIANIS 3
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petition is denied.
(2) All pending motions are denied.
September 11, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-145 Document: 8 Page: 3 Filed: 09/11/2025

-- 3 of 3 --