Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01989/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01989-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Grover Martin
Appellant
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

GROVER MARTIN,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1989

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 16-618, Judge William Greenberg.

______________________ 

Decided: October 11, 2016

______________________ 

GROVER MARTIN, Mobile, AL, pro se.

JOSHUA SCHNELL, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by 

BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., SCOTT D.

AUSTIN; Y. KEN LEE, CHRISTINA LYNN GREGG, Office of 

General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans 

Affairs, Washington, DC.

______________________ 

Case: 16-1989 Document: 21-2 Page: 1 Filed: 10/11/2016
2 MARTIN v. MCDONALD

Before DYK, O’MALLEY, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Petitioner Grover Martin appeals from a decision of 

the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

dismissing his petition for writ of mandamus. Because 

Mr. Martin’s appeal does not contest issues within our 

jurisdiction, we dismiss. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Martin served on active duty in the United States 

Army from January 1988 to April 1990. Following his 

service, Mr. Martin claimed a service connection for an 

acquired psychiatric condition that included posttraumatic stress disorder. In 1998, the Department of 

Veteran’s Affairs first denied that claim. But years later, 

Mr. Martin successfully reopened the claim. On April 12, 

2011, the Board remanded his reopened claim to the 

regional office (“RO”) with several directives, including 

issuing a new decision if the benefit was not granted. 

On February 8, 2016, almost five years after the 

Board’s remand, Mr. Martin filed a petition for a writ of 

mandamus in the Veteran’s Court seeking expeditious 

treatment of his claim by the RO. On March 7, 2016, the 

Veteran’s Court ordered the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

to respond to the petition. Four days later, on March 11, 

2016, the RO issued a decision denying Mr. Martin’s 

claim. Then on March 18, 2016, the Secretary informed 

the Veteran’s Court that the remanded claim had been 

adjudicated and that the desired mandamus relief had 

been obtained. 

The Veteran’s Court dismissed Mr. Martin’s petition 

for mandamus as moot. Mr. Martin appealed. 

Case: 16-1989 Document: 21-2 Page: 2 Filed: 10/11/2016
MARTIN v. MCDONALD 3

DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction to review appeals from a final judgment of the Veterans Court is limited. 38 U.S.C. 

§ 7292(c). We may review “the validity of a decision of the 

[Veterans] Court on a rule of law or of any statute or 

regulation . . . or any interpretation thereof (other than a 

determination as to a factual matter) that was relied on 

by the Court in making the decision.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c). 

However, absent a constitutional issue, we cannot review 

factual determinations or “challenge[s] to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” Id.

§ 7292(d)(2).

Our limited jurisdiction extends to our review of the 

Veterans Court’s dismissal of a petition for a writ of 

mandamus. See Lamb v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1378, 1381–

82 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “To obtain mandamus, the petitioner 

must show (1) that he has a ‘clear and indisputable right’

to the writ and (2) that he has no alternative way to 

obtain the relief sought.” Id. at 1382 (quoting Kerr v. U.S. 

Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976)).

Mr. Martin’s appeal does not raise an argument that 

we have jurisdiction to reach. Mr. Martin does not challenge the Veterans Court’s denial of his mandamus petition as moot, the only judgment appealed in this case. As 

such, Mr. Martin raises no question concerning the mandamus within the scope of our jurisdiction. See Lamb,

284 F.3d at 1381–82, 84. 

Instead, Mr. Martin challenges the V.A.’s denial of his 

service-connection claim and requests that this court 

direct the V.A. to grant him his denied benefits. He 

argues that the V.A. “altered [his] service treatment 

records,” violating his due process rights. Appellant Br. 1. 

He further contends that the Board made inconsistent 

factual findings in its multiple claim denials. Id. at 2; 

Reply Br. 1. And he claims that the V.A. and Veterans

Court wrongly dismissed his arguments. In sum, 

Case: 16-1989 Document: 21-2 Page: 3 Filed: 10/11/2016
4 MARTIN v. MCDONALD

Mr. Martin challenges the process and substance of the 

V.A.’s denial of his service-connection claim. 

We have no jurisdiction to review these arguments. 

The relief Mr. Martin seeks—reversal of the V.A.’s denial 

of his service connection claim—must be pursued through 

the ordinary course in the statutorily mandated appeal 

process by timely appeal to the Board. See 38 U.S.C. 

§§ 7104, 7252; see also J.A. 57–59 (providing Mr. Martin 

notice of the ordinary process of appealing his denied 

claim). As the Supreme Court explained in Cheney v. U.S. 

Dist. Court for D.C., “the party seeking issuance of the 

writ must have no other adequate means to attain the 

relief he desires—a condition designed to ensure that the 

writ will not be used as a substitute for the regular appeals process.” 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Mr. Martin must first 

exhaust the regular appeals process to contest the denial 

of his claim, we do not reach his arguments challenging 

that denial here. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss this appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction. 

DISMISSED

COSTS

No Costs. 

Case: 16-1989 Document: 21-2 Page: 4 Filed: 10/11/2016