
    In re Lonnie Ray WICKLIFFE, Petitioner.
    No. 104.
    United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
    Before BRYSON, SCHALL, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
   ON PETITION

ORDER

Lonnie Ray Wickliffe petitions for a writ of mandamus to direct the United States Court of Federal Claims to provide him “with a true, complete, and accurate copy and answers to the served[] request for Calls and Discovery.” Wickliffe also submits an “alternative writ” to direct the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to provide him with copies of “the Record of Proceedings filed in the district court, case no. l:96-cv00525.”

Wickliffe’s action in the Court of Federal Claims was only recently filed, and there is a motion pending before that court to dismiss Wickliffe’s complaint. A party seeking a writ bears the burden of proving that it has no other means of obtaining the relief desired, Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 309, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 104 L.Ed.2d 318 (1989), and that the right to issuance of the writ is “clear and indisputable,” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980). To the extent that Wickliffe seeks from us an order directing the Court of Federal Claims to take any action concerning discovery, etc., Wickliffe has not shown that he has no other means of obtaining the relief desired, because he has not shown that he cannot request the relief on appeal from any final judgment. To the extent that Wickliffe seeks from us an order directing the District of Columbia Circuit to take an action, we do not have jurisdiction to review that court’s decisions and thus we dismiss his “alternative writ.”

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. The “alternative writ” is dismissed.  