In Re RICHARD CORNELIUS JACKSON v. McDonough, 100 F.4th 1388, 1393 Fed. Cir. 2024 quoting Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for…

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re RICHARD CORNELIUS JACKSON,
Petitioner
______________________
2025-136
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the Merit Sys-
tems Protection Board in Nos. CH-1221-23-0376-W-1 and
CH-1221-24-0117-W-1.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before TARANTO, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Richard Cornelius Jackson petitions this court for a
writ of mandamus seeking to reassign his pending appeals
before the Merit Systems Protection Board to a different
administrative judge (AJ), to vacate certain rulings issued
in his appeals, and for other relief, including granting him
subpoenas, sanctions, an interim stay, and costs.
According to the petition, Mr. Jackson presently has
two pending Individual Right of Action appeals before the
same AJ. The AJ has to this point issued orders that,
Case: 25-136 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 07/18/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE JACKSON 2
among other things, have denied Mr. Jackson’s motions for
disqualification, ECF No. 2-2 at 318; denied his motion for
certification of that ruling for interlocutory appeal to the
Board, id. at 320; and addressed the Board’s jurisdiction,
id. at 182. On June 17, 2025, the AJ denied Mr. Jackson’s
motion to reconsider a prior jurisdictional ruling and set a
hearing for both appeals for July 28, 2025. Id. at 346-47.
Mr. Jackson then moved to certify the order for interlocu-
tory review by the Board, which the AJ has taken under
advisement. Id. at 372. This petition followed.
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and
may only issue if, among other things, petitioner has shown
a clear and indisputable right to relief and that there are
no other adequate means to attain the relief desired—“a
condition designed to ensure that the writ will not be used
as a substitute for the regular appeals process.” Love v.
McDonough, 100 F.4th 1388, 1393 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (quoting
Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81
(2004)). Mr. Jackson has not met this demanding standard
here, at least because he can raise his challenges to the or-
ders concerning jurisdiction and disqualification either to
the Board after an initial decision or to this court once
there is a final decision.1 Because there is an adequate
means to attain the requested relief by way of normal ap-
peal, mandamus is unavailable.
1 To the extent he contends that mandamus relief is
justified now because the Board lacks a quorum, ECF No.
2-1 at 20, we disagree. The appeals are proceeding toward
disposition, with a hearing scheduled within weeks, and
once the AJ issues initial decisions in these matters, they
will become the Board’s final decisions—irrespective of
quorum—35 days after issuance (unless any party files a
petition for review with the Board), at which point Mr.
Jackson may then seek this court’s review as warranted.
See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(a); 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A).
Case: 25-136 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 07/18/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE JACKSON 3
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition is denied.
July 18, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-136 Document: 10 Page: 3 Filed: 07/18/2025

-- 3 of 3 --