Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01529/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01529-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Denis McDonough
Appellee
Paul E. Robinson
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

______________________

PAUL E. ROBINSON,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2024-1529

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 23-5827, Judge Scott Laurer.

______________________

Decided: December 11, 2024

______________________

PAUL E. ROBINSON, Milwaukee, WI, pro se. 

 KRISTIN ELAINE OLSON, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also 

represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ELIZABETH MARIE 

HOSFORD, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY. 

 ______________________

Case: 24-1529 Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 12/11/2024
2 ROBINSON v. MCDONOUGH

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, TARANTO, Circuit Judge, and 

SCHROEDER, District Judge.

1

PER CURIAM.

Paul E. Robinson appeals a decision of the Court of 

Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) denying his 

petition for a writ of mandamus to reverse a Board of 

Veterans Appeals (Board) decision. For the following 

reasons, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

On September 21, 2023, Mr. Robinson petitioned the 

Veterans Court for a writ of mandamus. Appx. 8–12;2

S. Appx. 1.3 In the petition, Mr. Robinson sought a total 

disability rating based on individual unemployability

(TDIU) from 2000. S. Appx. 1. The Veterans Court 

construed the petition as seeking reversal of the Board’s

February 27, 2023 decision “denying an effective date 

before July 1, 2008, for a . . . TDIU.” Id. 

The Veterans Court noted a writ is a drastic remedy 

only issued in extraordinary situations when three 

condition are met: (1) the petitioner must lack an adequate 

alternative means to attain relief; (2) the petitioner must 

demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to the writ; and 

(3) the court must be convinced, given the circumstances, 

that the issuance of the writ is warranted. Id. at 2 (citing 

Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 

(2004)). The Veterans Court denied the petition for two 

1 Honorable Robert W. Schroeder, III, District Judge, 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

Texas, sitting by designation. 

2 “Appx.” refers to the Appendix starting on page four 

of Appellant’s Informal Brief. See Dkt. 9 at 4.

3 “S. Appx.” refers to the Supplemental Appendix filed 

with the Informal Response Brief. 

Case: 24-1529 Document: 27 Page: 2 Filed: 12/11/2024
ROBINSON v. MCDONOUGH 3

reasons: (1) it cannot independently grant Mr. Robinson’s

TDIU back to 2000 because it does not have authority to 

grant benefits, only to review Board decisions; and (2) 

mandamus relief is not warranted because Mr. Robinson

has adequate alternative means to seek relief via a pending 

appeal on a separate docket, Robinson v. McDonough, No. 

23-3751 (Vet. App. 2023), that challenges the Board’s 

February 27, 2023 decision. S. Appx. 2–3. Mr. Robinson

appeals.

DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans 

Court is limited by statute. 38 U.S.C. § 7292. We “have 

exclusive jurisdiction to review and decide any challenge to 

the validity of any statute or regulation or any 

interpretation thereof [by the Veterans Court] . . . and to 

interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the 

extent presented and necessary to a decision.” 38 U.S.C.

§ 7292(c). Absent a constitutional challenge, we may not

“review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a 

challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a 

particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). Although our 

jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans Court is 

limited, we possess jurisdiction over an appeal challenging 

the Veterans Court’s denial of a petition for a writ of 

mandamus, which we review for abuse of discretion. 

Hargrove v. Shinseki, 629 F.3d 1377, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir.

2011). 

On appeal, Mr. Robinson claims the Veterans Court

erred by failing to grant his petition. See generally

Appellant’s Informal Br. 1–3. Specifically, Mr. Robinson

argues the Veterans Court’s decision violates 18 U.S.C. 

§ 242 and his constitutional rights. Id. at 2–3.

We see no abuse of discretion in the Veterans Court’s 

denial of Mr. Robinson’s petition. A writ of mandamus is 

an extraordinary remedy. Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380. “The 

Supreme Court explained in Cheney, ‘the party seeking 

Case: 24-1529 Document: 27 Page: 3 Filed: 12/11/2024
4 ROBINSON v. MCDONOUGH

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.’” Hargrove, 629 F.3d at 1379 (citing 

Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380–81). The Veterans Court’s denial 

of the petition was not an abuse of discretion because Mr. 

Robinson had an adequate alternative means to attain the 

relief he requested—a pending appeal at the Veterans 

Court challenging the Board’s February 27, 2023 decision. 

Mr. Robinson argues the Veterans Court’s decision 

violates 18 U.S.C. § 242. Appellant’s Informal Br. 2. 

Section 242 is a criminal statute and therefore inapplicable 

to veteran benefits cases. We see no error in the Veterans 

Court’s decision related to 18 U.S.C. § 242, which the 

Veterans Court did not interpret. 

Mr. Robinson argues the Veterans Court’s decision 

violates his constitutional rights, including his right to due 

process, equal protection, life, liberty, and the pursuit of 

happiness, because the Veterans Court failed to consider 

its 2014 decision. Appellant’s Informal Br. 2–3. Mr. 

Robinson has advanced no argument as to why the 

Veterans Court was required to consider its 2014 decision 

in this matter or why the 2014 decision, if considered,

would entitle him to the writ he seeks.

CONCLUSION

We have considered Mr. Robinson’s remaining 

arguments and find them unpersuasive. We affirm the 

Veterans Court’s denial of mandamus.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 24-1529 Document: 27 Page: 4 Filed: 12/11/2024