`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`In Re SAMUEL WEBB,
`Petitioner
`______________________
`
`2024-114
`______________________
`
`On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
`Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:15-vv-00803-VJW, Senior
`Judge Victor J. Wolski.
`______________________
`
`ON PETITION
`______________________
`
`PER CURIAM.
`
`O R D E R
`Samuel Webb petitions for a writ of mandamus asking
`
`this court to direct the United States Court of Federal
`Claims to reopen his case seeking compensation under the
`National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (“Vaccine Act”), 42
`U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34.
`
`In 2015, Mr. Webb filed a petition at the Court of Fed-
`eral Claims seeking compensation for an injury he alleged
`was the result of a flu vaccine. After holding several status
`conferences, allowing Mr. Webb to amend his petition and
`submit additional evidence, and allowing the government
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 24-114 Document: 9 Page: 2 Filed: 04/01/2024
`
`2
`
`
`
`IN RE WEBB
`
`to submit a supplemental report, the Special Master denied
`Mr. Webb’s claim for lack of causation.
`The Court of Federal Claims sustained the Special
`Master’s decision. Relevant here, the court rejected Mr.
`Webb’s argument that the Special Master violated his due
`process rights by failing to hold another status conference
`after allowing the government to submit its supplemental
`report. On appeal, we affirmed. Webb v. Sec’y of Health &
`Hum. Servs., No. 2021-2276, 2022 WL 1073216, at *5 (Fed.
`Cir. Apr. 11, 2022). The Court of Federal Claims has since
`denied Mr. Webb’s motions for relief from judgment based
`on the same due process challenge, which Mr. Webb did not
`timely appeal. He now petitions this court, raising the
`same challenge.
` Mandamus is “reserved for extraordinary situations.”
`Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S.
`271, 289 (1988) (citation omitted). Thus, a petitioner must
`show that: (1) he has a clear and indisputable right to re-
`lief; (2) he does not have any other adequate method of ob-
`taining relief; and (3) the “writ is appropriate under the
`circumstances.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S.
`367, 380–81 (2004) (citation omitted). Mr. Webb has not
`satisfied this standard. Mr. Webb seeks to relitigate the
`same due process issue that was already considered and
`rejected in his prior appeal. Mandamus review does not
`afford him a second bite at the appellate apple.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 24-114 Document: 9 Page: 3 Filed: 04/01/2024
`
`IN RE WEBB
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`The petition is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`April 1, 2024
` Date
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FOR THE COURT
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
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.
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
