In Re SMITH , No. 21-189 (Fed. Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 21-189 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 11/23/2021 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ In re: FRANKLIN C. SMITH, Petitioner ______________________ 2021-189 ______________________ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. ______________________ ON PETITION ______________________ PER CURIAM. ORDER Franklin C. Smith petitions for writ of mandamus that appears to ask the court to direct public officials, including the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, “to perform the legal duties, or refrain from abusing their powers, which it has or refused to do.” ECF No. 2 at 1. Mr. Smith also files a submission entitled “cease and desist order” seeking to “immediately stop” the former Acting United States Attorney for the District of Columbia “from prosecuting U.S. Citizens at the Capitol on or about (January 6th[,] 2021).” ECF No. 7 at 1. The All Writs Act provides that the federal courts “may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their Case: 21-189 Document: 10 Page: 2 2 Filed: 11/23/2021 IN RE: SMITH respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). As that statute makes clear, however, the Act is not itself a grant of jurisdiction. See Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 534–35 (1999). This court does not have original jurisdiction over Mr. Smith’s requests for relief. Nor do his submissions reference any agency or trial court action that would eventually be subject to this court’s limited jurisdiction on direct appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1295 that would give us authority to consider a mandamus request. We therefore dismiss. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The petition is dismissed. (2) All pending motions are denied as moot. FOR THE COURT November 23, 2021 Date s32 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner 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.