In Re FLORES , No. 23-125 (Fed. Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 23-125 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 07/13/2023 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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 ______________________ PER CURIAM. ORDER 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 proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 4. Mr. Flores filed two complaints in the United States Court of Federal Claims, which were consolidated and dismissed 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 December 27, 2022, the Court of Federal Claims denied Case: 23-125 Document: 8 Page: 2 2 Filed: 07/13/2023 IN RE: FLORES 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 circumstances. 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 judgment” that he “attempted” to file in November 2022. However, 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 mandamus relief and therefore denies his petition. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The petition is denied. (2) All pending motions are denied. FOR THE COURT July 13, 2023 Date /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow Jarrett B. Perlow Clerk of Court
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
