Federal Circuit disposition — 24-114

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re SAMUEL WEBB,
Petitioner
______________________
2024-114
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:15-vv-00803-VJW, Senior
Judge Victor J. Wolski.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Samuel Webb petitions for a writ of mandamus asking
this court to direct the United States Court of Federal
Claims to reopen his case seeking compensation under the
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (“Vaccine Act”), 42
U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34.
In 2015, Mr. Webb filed a petition at the Court of Fed-
eral Claims seeking compensation for an injury he alleged
was the result of a flu vaccine. After holding several status
conferences, allowing Mr. Webb to amend his petition and
submit additional evidence, and allowing the government
Case: 24-114 Document: 9 Page: 1 Filed: 04/01/2024

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE WEBB 2
to submit a supplemental report, the Special Master denied
Mr. Webb’s claim for lack of causation.
The Court of Federal Claims sustained the Special
Master’s decision. Relevant here, the court rejected Mr.
Webb’s argument that the Special Master violated his due
process rights by failing to hold another status conference
after allowing the government to submit its supplemental
report. On appeal, we affirmed. Webb v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 2021-2276, 2022 WL 1073216, at *5 (Fed.
Cir. Apr. 11, 2022). The Court of Federal Claims has since
denied Mr. Webb’s motions for relief from judgment based
on the same due process challenge, which Mr. Webb did not
timely appeal. He now petitions this court, raising the
same challenge.
Mandamus is “reserved for extraordinary situations.”
Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S.
271, 289 (1988) (citation omitted). Thus, a petitioner must
show that: (1) he has a clear and indisputable right to re-
lief; (2) he does not have any other adequate method of ob-
taining relief; and (3) the “writ is appropriate under the
circumstances.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S.
367, 380–81 (2004) (citation omitted). Mr. Webb has not
satisfied this standard. Mr. Webb seeks to relitigate the
same due process issue that was already considered and
rejected in his prior appeal. Mandamus review does not
afford him a second bite at the appellate apple.
Accordingly,
Case: 24-114 Document: 9 Page: 2 Filed: 04/01/2024

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE WEBB 3
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petition is denied.
April 1, 2024
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 24-114 Document: 9 Page: 3 Filed: 04/01/2024

-- 3 of 3 --