In Re Salazar

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE MARTIN F. SALAZAR, Petitioner. l Miscellaneous Docket No. 110 On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the Merit Sys- tems Protection Board. . Before LOURIE, SCHALL, and DYK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER Martin F. Salazar petitions for a writ of mandamus to compel the Merit Systems Protection Board to docket two of his appea1s. The Board responds Salazar replies. On February 19, 2010, Salazar filed an appeal to the Board seeking reinstatement of his retirement annuity. On December 4, 2010, Salazar filed another appeal seek- ing reinstatement of his retirement annuity. The Board did not docket this second filing as a new appeal because the filing was essentially the same as Salazar’s_ February 19, 2010 appeal, which was still pending before the Board. Salazar filed yet another appeal seeking reinstatement of his retirement annuity on September 26, 2011, which the IN RE SAI..AZAR 2 Board also did not docket as a new appeal On June 8, 2011, Salazar filed an appeal that sought reinstatement of his health benefits The Board docketed that appeal regarding health benefits. On January 7, 2011, an admin- istrative judge dismissed Salazar’s February 19 appeal that sought reinstatement of his retirement annuity. Salazar sought full Board reView, and the Board affirmed the administrative judge's decision, as modified, and sustained the Office of Personnel Management's decision to not reinstate his retirement annuity. Salazar peti- tioned this court for review of the Board's final order in that case. ln October of 2011, Salazar contacted the Board by telephone to learn the status of his December 4, June 8, and September 26 filings. The Board informed Salazar that his filings requesting the same relief as his February 19, 2010 filing would not be docketed as new appeals. This petition for writ of mandamus followed. ` The remedy of mandamus is available only in ex- traordinary situations to correct a clear abuse of discre- tion or usurpation of judicial power. In re Calmer, Inc., 854 F.2d 461, 464 (Fed. Cir. 1988). A party seeking a writ bears the burden of proving that it has no other means of attaining the relief desired, Mallard u. U.S. Dist. Cou,rt for the Southern Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989), and that the right to issuance of the writ is “clear and indisputable." Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). Based on the papers submitted, Salazar has not met his burden of showing entitlement to a writ. Salazar has not shown that the Board was required to file multiple appeals of the same matter. Accordingly, IT Is ORDERED THAT: 3 lN RE SALAZAR Salazar’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied. FoR THE CoURT 2 2012 /s/ J an Horbaly Date J an Horbaly Clerk cc: Martin F. Salazar Calvin Morrow, Esq. s8 LED FOH JUL 20 2012 .¢Awnonmv cism<