In re: JOSEPH JOHNSON v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 1989

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In re: JOSEPH JOHNSON,
Petitioner
______________________
2019-110
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United
States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:17-cv-00353-BAF,
Senior Judge Bohdan A. Futey.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Joseph Johnson petitions for a writ of mandamus. He
also moves for leave to supplement his petition and for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
On August 11, 2017, the United States Court of
Federal Claims issued an opinion dismissing Mr. John-
son’s complaint and ordering that “Mr. Johnson is en-
joined from filing any new documents with this Court
without first obtaining leave to do so.” The Claims Court
Case: 19-110 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 03/27/2019

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE: JOHNSON 2
subsequently entered judgment against Mr. Johnson. On
appeal, this court affirmed.*
It appears from his submission before this court that
in December 2018 Mr. Johnson attempted to file what he
characterizes as a request to reopen in part the now final
judgment in that case. It further appears that the Claims
Court has not docketed the submission pursuant to the
August 2017 anti-filing injunction. Mr. Johnson now
seeks an order directing the Claims Court to file his
documents.
A party seeking a writ bears the burden of demon-
strating that it has no “adequate alternative” means to
obtain the desired relief, Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for
the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989), and that the
right to issuance of the writ is “clear and indisputable,”
Will v. Calvert Fire Ins., 437 U.S. 655, 666 (1978) (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted). The court must
also be satisfied that the issuance of the writ is appropri-
ate under the circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court
for the Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 381 (2004).
The court cannot say that Mr. Johnson has shown
entitlement to a writ of mandamus. Among other things,
it does not appear that Mr. Johnson followed the proce-
dure set out in the August 2017 order requiring him to
first seek leave to file a document in the Claims Court.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The motion to supplement the petition is granted.
(2) The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
is granted.
* The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2109 due to a lack of quorum.
Case: 19-110 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 03/27/2019

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE: JOHNSON 3
(3) The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
F OR THE COURT
March 27, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
s25
Case: 19-110 Document: 6 Page: 3 Filed: 03/27/2019

-- 3 of 3 --