In re: MARK C. JACKSON v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 Case: 20-102…

N
OTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In re: MARK C. JACKSON,
Petitioner
______________________

2020-102
______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 19-5406,
Judge Margaret C. Bartley.
______________________

ON PETITION
______________________

PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Before the court is Mark C. Jackson’s “Petition for Ex-
traordinary Relief,” which the court construes as seeking
mandamus relief. Mr. Jackson has also submitted a “notice
of interlocutory appeal.”
To prevail on a mandamus petition, a party must show:
(1) it has a clear legal right to relief; (2) there are no ade-
quate alternative legal channels through which it may ob-
tain that relief; and (3) the grant of mandamus is
appropriate under the circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist.
Court for the Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380–81
Case: 20-102 Document: 5-1 Page: 1 Filed: 01/29/2020

IN RE JACKSON
2
(2004); Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court for the N. Dist. of Cal., 426
U.S. 394, 403 (1976).
Among other things, Mr. Jackson states in his petition
that he seeks “the necessary writs to enforce the judgment”
in connection with a decision of the Board of Veterans Ap-
peals, No. 04-31 819A, 2014 WL 5094720 (Aug. 4, 2014),
and has a petition for an extraordinary writ pending in the
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims “but,
to date no action has been taken by the court on the peti-
tion.” Mr. Jackson identifies Veterans Court Docket No.
2019-5406. On November 21, 2019, the Veterans Court
acted on Mr. Jackson’s petition in that case. Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(d), this court will
transmit to the Veterans Court Mr. Jackson’s notice of ap-
peal as having been timely filed. Mr. Jackson thus has an
alternative means by which to pursue his relief.
Mr. Jackson also raises allegations against numerous
parties, including the State of Florida, concerning “a gov-
ernmental racketeering enterprise conspiracy or retalia-
tory, discriminatory prohibited personnel practice or
unwarranted personnel action” involving, among other
things, court corruption, his driver’s license suspension, his
brother’s murder, and his attendance at West Virginia Uni-
versity. Just as this court previously concluded that Mr.
Jackson’s earlier petitions raising essentially the same al-
legations failed to establish a clear and indisputable right
to relief, see, e.g., Jackson v. United States, 612 F. App’x
997 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Jackson v. Shinseki, 421 F. App’x 957
(Fed. Cir. 2011), we do the same here.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) Mr. Jackson’s petition is denied.
(2) This court transmits ECF No. 4, to the Clerk of the
Veterans Court to be considered a notice of appeal in Jack-
son v. Wilkie, No. 19-5406, filed on December 17, 2019.
Case: 20-102 Document: 5-1 Page: 2 Filed: 01/29/2020

IN RE JACKSON
3

FOR THE COURT

January 29, 2020 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
s31

Case: 20-102 Document: 5-1 Page: 3 Filed: 01/29/2020