In Re FEI CAI v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248 1992 . Here, the petition satisfies the general…

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re FEI CAI,
Petitioner
______________________
2026-120
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:24-vv-01881-LAS, Senior
Judge Loren A. Smith.
______________________
ON PETITION AND MOTION
______________________
Before STOLL, WALLACH, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
In the underlying Vaccine Act case, the United States
Court of Federal Claims dismissed Fei Cai’s motion to re-
view the special master’s dismissal of her action after she
failed to comply with the court’s page limits for such filings.
Within 60 days of that order, she filed at this court a peti-
tion for a writ of mandamus challenging the dismissal and
a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Although Ms. Cai’s petition is styled as a request for
mandamus relief, we have discretion to consider whether
Case: 26-120 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 01/22/2026

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE CAI 2
her filing constitutes a notice of appeal. See Smith v. Barry,
502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992). Here, the petition satisfies the
general requirements for a notice of appeal under Rule 3 of
the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and would be
timely if treated as a notice of appeal.1 We conclude that
the petition should be construed as a direct appeal, and
thus we also conclude mandamus relief is not appropriate.
See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490
U.S. 296, 309 (1989) (holding that a party seeking a writ
bears the burden of proving that it has no other adequate
means of attaining the relief, such as by appeal).
As to Ms. Cai’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal, no motion is necessary because she was
granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis before the
Court of Federal Claims. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3); Fed. Cir.
R. (a)(1)(C).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petition is denied. ECF No. 2 is treated as a
timely notice of appeal in this matter. The Clerk of Court
shall transfer this matter to the court’s normal appeals
docket, and Ms. Cai’s opening brief is due within 60 days
from the date of docketing.
1 Though the Court of Federal Claims stated the dis-
missal was without prejudice, the dismissal was involun-
tary, did not provide for leave to amend, and indicates
intent to close the case, rendering it appealable. See H.R.
Techs., Inc. v. Astetechnologies, Inc., 275 F.3d 1378, 1383
(Fed. Cir. 2002).
Case: 26-120 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 01/22/2026

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE CAI 3
(2) The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
on appeal is denied as moot.
January 22, 2026
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 26-120 Document: 6 Page: 3 Filed: 01/22/2026

-- 3 of 3 --