In Re RAGHUBIR , No. 22-102 (Fed. Cir. 2021)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-102 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 12/07/2021 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ In re: VINODH RAGHUBIR, Petitioner ______________________ 2022-102 ______________________ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:20-cv-00388-EGB, Senior Judge Eric G. Bruggink. ______________________ ON PETITION AND MOTION ______________________ PER CURIAM. ORDER Vinodh Raghubir petitions this court for writ of mandamus. The United States moves for summary dismissal. Mr. Raghubir moves to strike the United States’ motion and also moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On August 28, 2020, the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed Mr. Raghubir’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Raghubir sought this court’s review. On December 22, 2020, this court dismissed his appeal as frivolous. In re Raghubir, 831 F. App’x 957, 958 (Fed. Cir. 2020). On September 13, 2021, the Court of Federal Claims received from Mr. Raghubir a submission entitled Case: 22-102 Document: 12 2 Page: 2 Filed: 12/07/2021 IN RE: RAGHUBIR “Demand/Motion for Reinstatement.” On September 20, 2021, the Court of Federal Claims issued an order notifying Mr. Raghubir that his submission would not be docketed because his case was over. Mr. Raghubir’s petition argues that the Court of Federal Claims’ September 20, 2021 order “violat[ed] federal law and rules of procedure,” which “resulted in vindictive proceedings.” Pet. at 2 (capitalization omitted). But he has not met the high standard for mandamus relief because, among other things, he has not shown a “clear and indisputable,” right to having his submission, filed almost a year after his case was over, considered by the trial court. Will v. Calvert Fire Ins., 437 U.S. 655, 665–66 (1978) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The petition is denied. (2) All pending motions are denied as moot. FOR THE COURT December 07, 2021 Date s28 /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.