throbber
Case: 19-121 Document: 4 Page: 1 Filed: 07/18/2019
`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`In re: REBECCA GALLOGLY,
`Petitioner
`______________________
`
`2019-121
`______________________
`
`On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
`Court of Federal Claims.
`______________________
`
`ON PETITION
`______________________
`
`PER CURIAM.
`
`O R D E R
`Rebecca Gallogly petitions for a writ of mandamus di-
`
`recting the United States Court of Federal Claims to allow
`her to electronically file her complaint and other docu-
`ments sent in PDF format on a USB drive. She also moves
`for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
` Dr. Gallogly delivered to the Claims Court a USB drive
`with a letter requesting her complaint and “ancillary mo-
`tions” stored on that USB drive be filed. With a letter by a
`staff attorney, the Clerk of the Claims Court returned the
`USB drive and explained that the clerk’s office was unable
`to accept the submissions. In doing so, the Clerk explained
`to Dr. Gallogly that pro se plaintiffs are required to file
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 19-121 Document: 4 Page: 2 Filed: 07/18/2019
`
`2
`
`
`
`IN RE: GALLOGLY
`
`complaints in paper form under Rule 5.5 of the Rules of the
`United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”).
`The remedy of mandamus is available only in “excep-
`tional 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). The
`party seeking a writ of mandamus must (1) “have no other
`adequate means to attain the relief [s]he desires,” (2) show
`that her right to issuance is “clear and indisputable,” and
`(3) satisfy the court that the issuance of the writ is appro-
`priate under the circumstances. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist.
`Court for the Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380–81
`(2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
`The Rules of the Claims Court do not at this time allow
`Dr. Gallogly to file her complaint electronically. And even
`if we were to agree that there may be some facial conflict
`between RCFC 5.5 and Rule 5(d)(4) of the Federal Rules of
`Civil Procedure and agree that Rule 5(d)(4) is applicable to
`the Claims Court, we cannot say that Dr. Gallogly has a
`clear and indisputable right to compel the Clerk to accept
`submissions via USB drive. Moreover, Dr. Gallogly has an
`alternative avenue of asking the Claims Court itself to re-
`consider the action of the Clerk and to offer a more suitable
`means of electronic filing. We therefore cannot say that
`mandamus relief is appropriate here.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`
`(1) The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
`
`(2) The motion for leave to file in forma pauperis is
`granted for purposes of filing this petition.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 19-121 Document: 4 Page: 3 Filed: 07/18/2019
`
`IN RE: GALLOGLY
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` FOR THE COURT
`
`
`
` July 18, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
` Date
` Peter R. Marksteiner
` Clerk of Court
`s25
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket