In Re JOHNSON

Opinion

Case: 26-137 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 06/10/2026

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In Re CARL EDWARD JOHNSON, Petitioner ______________________

2026-137 ______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in Nos. 25-9113 and 26-1524. ______________________

ON PETITION AND MOTION ______________________

Before TARANTO, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER Carl Edward Johnson files a petition for a writ of man- damus and “motion for order to show cause” regarding pending claims for benefits from the Department of Veter- ans Affairs.1 ECF No. 2 at 4. Among other things, he

1 Mr. Johnson is presently briefing an appeal (No. 2025-9113) at the United States Court of Appeals for Vet- erans Claims concerning a December 2025 rating decision. His related mandamus petition (No. 2026-1524) at the Case: 26-137 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 06/10/2026

2 IN RE JOHNSON

asserts improper withholding of agency records, improper splitting of his claims into “fragmented ‘docketed s[h]eets’,” and allowing the filing of an unauthorized brief. Id. He seeks, inter alia, to compel the consolidation of the record, correct his dockets, and immediately execute a remand or- der. 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 that there are “no other ade- quate means” to attain the relief desired—“a condition designed to ensure that the writ will not be used as a sub- stitute 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. Johnson has not met this demanding standard at least because he has not shown that mandamus is the only adequate means to obtain relief. He can seek relief at the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and from this court by regular appeal, if warranted, after the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims issues a decision. And, to the extent Mr. Johnson has sought such relief, he has not shown that any delay in handling his cases has been so egregious as to warrant mandamus relief. Accordingly,

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims was recently denied after the filing of this mandamus petition. Case: 26-137 Document: 10 Page: 3 Filed: 06/10/2026

IN RE JOHNSON 3

IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The petition is denied. (2) All pending motions are denied. FOR THE COURT

June 10, 2026 Date