Federal Circuit disposition — 26-138

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re MARK INGRAHAM,
Petitioner
______________________
2026-138
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:26-cv-00475-TMD, Judge
Thompson M. Dietz.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Mark Ingraham files a document entitled “Petition for
Writ of Mandamus to Compel Clerk to Issue Summons,”
ECF No. 2 at 1, stating the United States Court of Federal
Claims “Clerk states defendant was already
served . . . . Clerk should either confirm this or issue sum-
mons,” id. at 2.
A petitioner seeking the extraordinary remedy of man-
damus must show: (1) “no other adequate means to attain
the relief he desires,” (2) a “clear and indisputable” right to
relief, and (3) the writ is “appropriate under the circum-
stances.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367,
Case: 26-138 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 05/22/2026

-- 1 of 2 --

IN RE INGRAHAM 2
380–81 (2004) (cleaned up). Mr. Ingraham fails to meet
this demanding standard. He has not shown clear entitle-
ment to relief given that the Court of Federal Claims’s
docket indicates service on the Department of Justice and
the date on which the answer is due. See Docket Text for
Dkt. No. 1 (“Copy Served Electronically on Department of
Justice” and “Answer due by 5/28/2026”); see also RCFC 4
(describing the manner, proof, and date of service on the
United States).1 Nor has Mr. Ingraham demonstrated the
inadequacy of an appeal following final judgment.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petition is denied, and any pending motions are
denied.
May 22, 2026
Date
F OR THE COURT
1 Note that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, re-
garding summons, applies to United States district courts.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
Case: 26-138 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 05/22/2026

-- 2 of 2 --