In re: ERIC FLORES v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 2004 . Mr. Flores seeks to compel the…

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In re: ERIC FLORES,
Petitioner
______________________
2023-125
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
Court of Federal Claims in Nos. 1:11-cv-00110-GWM and
1:11-cv-00127-GWM, Judge George W. Miller.
______________________
ON PETITION AND MOTION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Before the court are Eric Flores’ petition for a writ of
mandamus, ECF No. 2, motion for “enforcement of original
money judgment,” ECF No. 3, and motion for leave to pro-
ceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 4.
Mr. Flores filed two complaints in the United States
Court of Federal Claims, which were consolidated and dis-
missed for lack of jurisdiction. On November 8, 2022, Mr.
Flores moved to set aside the judgment, which the Court of
Federal Claims denied on November 22, 2022.
Mr. Flores appealed that ruling to this court. On De-
cember 27, 2022, the Court of Federal Claims denied
Case: 23-125 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 07/13/2023

-- 1 of 2 --

IN RE: FLORES 2
several post-judgment submissions and directed the clerk
of that court to accept no further filings in those cases. On
March 14, 2023, this court dismissed Mr. Flores’ appeal.
This petition was filed the following day.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available only
where the petitioner shows: (1) a clear and indisputable
right to relief; (2) there are no adequate alternative legal
channels through which he may obtain that relief; and
(3) the grant of mandamus is appropriate under the cir-
cumstances. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S.
367, 380-81 (2004).
Mr. Flores seeks to compel the Court of Federal Claims
to “file” his “motion for enforcement of original money judg-
ment” that he “attempted” to file in November 2022. How-
ever, the Court of Federal Claims’ December 27, 2022,
order considered and rejected that motion as an attempt to
merely relitigate his motion to set aside the judgment.
The court has considered Mr. Flores’ other arguments
but concludes that he has not shown entitlement to man-
damus relief and therefore denies his petition.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The petition is denied.
(2) All pending motions are denied.
July 13, 2023
Date
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
Jarrett B. Perlow
Clerk of Court
Case: 23-125 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 07/13/2023

-- 2 of 2 --