United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 18-1016 September Term, 2017
FCC-EB-13-MD-006
Filed On:  March 14, 2018
In re: NTCH, Inc.,
Petitioner
BEFORE: Henderson, Tatel, and Katsas, Circuit Judges
O R D E R
Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus, it is
ORDERED that the petition be denied.  To the extent petitioner asserts the
Federal Communications Commission has unreasonably delayed in acting on its
pending application for review of a discovery decision, petitioner has not demonstrated
that the Commission has a clear duty to act on that application since the proceeding
was terminated in June 2016, much less that “the [Commission’s] delay is so egregious
as to warrant mandamus.”  Telecomms. Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70,
79 (D.C. Cir. 1984).  To the extent petitioner seeks to compel the Commission to
resolve its 2013 complaint, mandamus “may be invoked only if the statutorily prescribed
remedy is clearly inadequate.”  In re GTE Serv. Corp., 762 F.2d 1024, 1027 (D.C. Cir.
1985).  In this action, petitioner could have filed an application for review of the
Enforcement Bureau’s June 30, 2016 order by the Commission, and then sought
judicial review of the Commission’s order in this court.  See NTCH, Inc. v. FCC, 877
F.3d 408 (D.C. Cir. 2017).  A writ of mandamus “may not be invoked as a mere
substitute for appeal.”  In re GTE Serv. Corp., 762 F.2d at 1027.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.
Per Curiam
USCA Case #18-1016      Document #1722098            Filed: 03/14/2018      Page 1 of 1