Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Inre: Howard, 14-125 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Number: 14-125 Visitors: 7
Filed: May 06, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 14-125 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 05/06/2014 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit _ IN RE SHERMAN HOWARD, Petitioner. _ 2014-125 _ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the Merit Systems Protection Board in DA0752090172-C-1. _ ON PETITION _ Before NEWMAN, PROST, and REYNA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER Sherman Howard (“Howard”) petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) to issue a final de
More
Case: 14-125    Document: 10   Page: 1   Filed: 05/06/2014




          NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                __________________________

               IN RE SHERMAN HOWARD,
                       Petitioner.
                __________________________

                         2014-125
                __________________________

 On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the Merit Systems
        Protection Board in DA0752090172-C-1.
                __________________________

                      ON PETITION
                __________________________

   Before NEWMAN, PROST, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.

                       ORDER

    Sherman Howard (“Howard”) petitions for a writ of
mandamus directing the Merit Systems Protection Board
(“MSPB”) to issue a final decision in Howard v. Depart-
ment of the Air Force, DA-0752-09-0172-C-1. Howard also
seeks attorney fees and costs associated with filing this
petition pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28
U.S.C. § 2412(d). The MSPB opposes.
Case: 14-125      Document: 10    Page: 2    Filed: 05/06/2014




IN RE HOWARD                                                 2

    Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available only
where the petitioner shows: (1) a clear legal 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 circumstances.
Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 
542 U.S. 367
, 380-81 (2004);
Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 
426 U.S. 394
, 403 (1976). In
denying this requested relief, we note that on the same
day Howard filed this petition the MSPB issued its deci-
sion in DA-0752-09-0172-C-1.

      Accordingly,

      IT IS ORDERED THAT:

      The petition is denied.


                                     FOR THE COURT

                                     /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
                                         Daniel E. O’Toole
                                         Clerk of Court
s23

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer