In re: DEREK J. MORRIS v. Werner & Pfleider- er Corp., 710 F.2d 1561, 1565 Fed. Cir. 1983 “The All Writs Act…

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In re: DEREK J. MORRIS,
Petitioner
______________________
2018-158
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the Merit Sys-
tems Protection Board in Nos. SF-0752-13-1476-I-1 and
SF-0752-13-1476-S-1.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Derek J. Morris appears to seek mandamus relief con-
cerning the Merit Systems Protection Board’s initial May
2016 decision and October 2016 final decision sustaining
his removal from the Navy’s Security Training and As-
sessment Team and denying his affirmative defenses of
discrimination based on, among other things, his race.
Petitioner has already attempted to petition for
review of those Board decisions in this court. In May
2017, this court explained to Petitioner that it lacked
jurisdiction over his case because he “presented discrimi-
nation claims before the Board and his filings before this
Case: 18-158 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 10/18/2018

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE: MORRIS 2
court indicate that he is unwilling to ‘waive’ or ‘abandon’”
those claims. The court therefore transferred his case to a
federal district court where all of his claims could be
adjudicated.
For the reasons that we lacked jurisdiction over the
prior petition, we lack jurisdiction over a request for
mandamus. See Baker Perkins, Inc. v. Werner & Pfleider-
er Corp., 710 F.2d 1561, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“The All
Writs Act is not an independent basis of jurisdiction, and
the petitioner must initially show that the action sought
to be corrected by mandamus is within this court’s statu-
torily defined subject matter jurisdiction.”).*
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petition is dismissed. Because Petitioner’s filing
raised arguments concerning the merits of his case, the
court will transmit it and all other filings to the federal
district court to which his case previously was trans-
ferred, the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California. Petitioner is reminded that any
future filing concerning the subject of his appeal must be
filed in federal district court.
* To the extent Petitioner asserts the right to fur-
ther review by this court because the May 2017 order was
signed by the clerk of court, the court notes that the clerk
of court is authorized to sign a document “for the court”
when directed by a judge or the court. See Fed. Cir. R.
45(c). Here, the matter was decided by a panel of three
judges, and the clerk signed the order for the court.
Case: 18-158 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 10/18/2018

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE: MORRIS 3
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
s25
Case: 18-158 Document: 8 Page: 3 Filed: 10/18/2018

-- 3 of 3 --