Federal Circuit disposition — 25-116

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re DANIEL A. BERGER,
Petitioner
______________________
2025-116
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:24-cv-01991-KCD, Judge
Kathryn C. Davis.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before L OURIE, MAYER, and HUGHES , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Daniel A. Berger petitions this court for a writ of man-
damus relating to his pending case before the United
States Court of Federal Claims. We deny the petition.
On December 2, 2024, Mr. Berger filed a complaint at
the Court of Federal Claims seeking, among other things,
to “compel any and all of the various officers comprising the
government of the United States to take affirmative ac-
tion . . . to ensure that a Constitutionally disabled person
does not enter upon the Execution of the Office of Presi-
dent.” Compl. at 11 (emphasis omitted). On
Case: 25-116 Document: 3 Page: 1 Filed: 01/27/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE BERGER 2
December 4, 2024, Mr. Berger filed a motion seeking,
among other things, access to the court’s electronic filing
system.
On January 2, 2025, Mr. Berger filed this petition seek-
ing a writ of mandamus to compel the Court of Federal
Claims to provide him “full electronic access to the Court’s
docket and filing system” and to bring “within the jurisdic-
tion of that tribunal the named Defendants,” id. at 2, which
Mr. Berger states include the United States President,
Vice President, and Speaker of the House, id. at 3–4, by
providing an order “specifically authorizing” him “to enter
upon the business premises and of the named Defendants
and any such Government property, for the limited pur-
poses of effectuating service,” id. at 4.
On January 6, 2025, the Court of Federal Claims is-
sued two orders relevant to this petition. In the first order,
the court granted Mr. Berger’s request “to file via the ECF
system.” Dkt. No. 9 at 1. In the second order, the court
denied Mr. Berger’s motion of January 3, 2025, requesting
authorization to enter the premises of the above-identified
officials to serve them his complaint, explaining that the
only proper defendant in that court is the United States,
which has already been served the complaint by the Clerk
of that court. Dkt. No. 10 at 1.
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and
may only issue if three requirements are met: (1) the peti-
tioner has no other adequate means to attain the relief de-
sired; (2) the petitioner must show a clear and indisputable
right to the requested relief; and (3) the court must be con-
vinced to exercise its discretion to issue the writ. Cheney
v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004).
Mr. Berger’s petition fails to satisfy these requirements.
Mr. Berger’s request to compel the trial court to permit
him access to that court’s electronic filing system is now
moot. As to his requests to compel the appearance of high-
level government officials in this case and permit him to
Case: 25-116 Document: 3 Page: 2 Filed: 01/27/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE BERGER 3
enter the premises of these officials to effect service of pro-
cess, his petition fails to show the inadequacy of appeal af-
ter final judgment or any clear and indisputable right to
the requested relief, see Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d
621, 624 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“The Tucker Act grants the Court
of Federal Claims jurisdiction over suits against the United
States, not against individual federal officials.”).
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petition is denied.
January 27, 2025
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 25-116 Document: 3 Page: 3 Filed: 01/27/2025

-- 3 of 3 --