In Re GALLOGLY , No. 22-129 (Fed. Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-129 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 05/12/2022 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ In re: REBECCA GALLOGLY, Petitioner ______________________ 2022-129 ______________________ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:20-cv-00261-MCW, Senior Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams. ______________________ ON PETITION ______________________ PER CURIAM. ORDER On June 17, 2020, the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed Rebecca Gallogly’s case and entered judgment. The Court of Federal Claims subsequently denied all post-judgment motions on May 19, 2021. On March 10, 2022, Dr. Gallogly filed this petition challenging several of the Court of Federal Claims’ rulings and requesting various relief in connection with her claims. The remedy of mandamus is available only in “exceptional circumstances to correct a clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power.” In re Calmar, Inc., 854 F.2d 461, 464 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). A party seeking a writ of mandamus bears the burden of Case: 22-129 Document: 10 2 Page: 2 Filed: 05/12/2022 IN RE: GALLOGLY demonstrating to the court that (1) there are no adequate alternative legal channels through which she may obtain that relief; (2) the petitioner has a clear and indisputable right to 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). Dr. Gallogly has not met those requirements here. “Mandamus relief is not appropriate when a petitioner fails to seek relief through the normal appeal process.” In re Fermin, 859 F. App’x 904, 905 (Fed. Cir. 2021); see also In re Pollitz, 206 U.S. 323, 331 (1907) (“[M]andamus cannot . . . be used to perform the office of an appeal . . . .”). Because Dr. Gallogly failed to raise her challenges to the decisions of the Court of Federal Claims by way of a timely filed direct appeal, we deny her request for mandamus. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The petition is denied, and any pending motions are denied as moot. FOR THE COURT May 12, 2022 Date /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.
