Federal Circuit disposition — 26-109

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re RICHARD CORNELIUS JACKSON,
Petitioner
______________________
2026-109
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the Merit Sys-
tems Protection Board in Nos. CH-4324-24-0565-I-1 and
CH-4324-24-0565-I-2.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before STOLL, WALLACH, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Richard Cornelius Jackson petitions for a writ of man-
damus directing the Merit Systems Protection Board to, in-
ter alia, order discovery and sanction the employing agency
in his pending case asserting rights under the Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act.
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and
may only issue if petitioner has shown a clear and indis-
putable right to relief and there are no other adequate
means to attain the relief desired—“a condition designed to
Case: 26-109 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 01/27/2026

-- 1 of 2 --

IN RE JACKSON 2
ensure that the writ will not be used as a substitute for the
regular appeals process.” Love v. McDonough, 100 F.4th
1388, 1393 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (quoting Cheney v. U.S. Dist.
Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004)). Mr. Jackson has
not met this demanding standard as to his requests for
sanctions and discovery at least because he can raise such
challenges either to the Board after an initial decision or to
this court once there is a final decision.
Mr. Jackson also argues that the administrative judge
“abused her discretion in refusing to process” the appeal
“within the 120-day standard,” ECF No. 2 at 8, and “has
unreasonably delayed” acting on his appeal, id. at 17. To
the extent that he relies on 5 U.S.C. § 7702(a)(1), see ECF
No. 2 at 32 (Board notice referring to § 7702(a)(1)), his re-
liance is misplaced. That provision is expressly limited to
so-called mixed cases, which does not cover Mr. Jackson’s
case, and merely permits the filing of a district court case
if no judicially reviewable Board decision is reached within
120 days. See id. (stating that “the Board shall, within 120
days of the filing of the appeal, decide both the issue of dis-
crimination and the appealable action”); § 7702(e)(1). More
generally, we cannot say Mr. Jackson has shown that any
delay in handling his appeal has been so egregious as to
warrant mandamus relief.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition is denied.
January 27, 2026
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 26-109 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 01/27/2026

-- 2 of 2 --