Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07088/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07088-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eddie Johnson
Appellant
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

EDDIE JOHNSON,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-7088

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 12-1722, Judge Lawrence B. 

Hagel.

______________________ 

Decided: January 11, 2016

______________________ 

 EDDIE JOHNSON, Warner Robins, GA, pro se.

 AGATHA KOPROWSKI, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by SCOTT D. AUSTIN, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,

BENJAMIN C. MIZER; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, BRANDON A.

JONAS, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

Case: 15-7088 Document: 23-2 Page: 1 Filed: 01/11/2016
2 JOHNSON v. MCDONALD

______________________ 

Before MOORE, O’MALLEY, and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Appellant Eddie Johnson seeks review of the April 1, 

2015 decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

(“Veterans Court”) denying various motions made by 

Johnson after the issuance of the Veterans Court’s mandate. For the reasons below, we dismiss Johnson’s appeal 

for lack of jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

This Court previously set forth the background of the 

present controversy in our decision in Johnson v. 

Shinseki, 549 Fed. App’x. 994 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (unpublished). Subsequent to that decision, the Veterans 

Court issued its mandate on April 2, 2014. Joint Appendix (“JA”) 61. 

On March 23, 2015, Johnson filed a motion to recall 

the Veterans Court’s mandate, a motion for reconsideration, a discovery motion, and a motion to recuse presiding 

Judge Hagel. Johnson alleged that his motion to recall 

the mandate was filed pursuant to the Fifth Amendment 

of the United States Constitution, Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 60(b), and “the discretionary and equitable 

powers of the Court.” JA 4. 

On April 1, 2015, the Veterans Court denied Mr. 

Johnson’s motion to recall the mandate and to recuse 

Judge Hagel, and dismissed the remaining motions as 

moot. JA 1-3. In its decision, the Veterans Court held 

that it could not recall the mandate “because that decision 

has been subsumed by the Federal Circuit’s December 

2013 decision.” JA 1-2. And because the Veterans Court 

could not recall the mandate, the Veterans Court disCase: 15-7088 Document: 23-2 Page: 2 Filed: 01/11/2016
JOHNSON v. MCDONALD 3

missed as moot Johnson’s motions for reconsideration and 

for discovery. The Veterans Court further denied Johnson’s motion to recuse, finding that “no objective observer 

would reasonably question [Judge Hagel’s] impartiality” 

or believe that Judge Hagel harbored “any personal bias 

or prejudice” regarding Johnson. JA 2 (discussing 28 

U.S.C. § 455).

Johnson appeals. 

DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans 

Court is limited. We have jurisdiction “to review and 

decide any challenge to the validity of any statute or 

regulation or any interpretation thereof . . . and to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent 

presented and necessary to a decision.” Wanless v. 

Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting 38 

U.S.C. § 7292(c)). “Absent a constitutional issue, however, we lack the jurisdiction to ‘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.’” 

Id. (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2)).

Here, Johnson requests that we reverse the Veterans 

Court’s decision because it was made in violation of 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and Johnson’s Due 

Process and Equal Protection rights. Appellant Br. at 1. 

The Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) responds that 

we lack jurisdiction over Johnson’s claim and that, even if 

we had jurisdiction, the Veterans Court did not commit 

legal error or abuse its discretion in denying or dismissing 

Johnson’s motions. Respondent Br. at 11. 

We agree with the VA that we lack jurisdiction over 

Johnson’s appeal. Though Johnson asks us to review the 

Veterans Court’s decision in light of Rule 60(b), we note 

that the Veterans Court did not interpret that Rule or 

discuss its meaning in adjudicating Johnson’s appeal. See

Case: 15-7088 Document: 23-2 Page: 3 Filed: 01/11/2016
4 JOHNSON v. MCDONALD

JA 1-3. Instead, Johnson asks us to determine whether 

the Veterans Court properly applied Rule 60(b) to the 

facts of Johnson’s claim. Johnson’s dispute over the 

correctness of the Veterans Court’s judgment therefore 

does not raise a challenge regarding “the validity of any 

statute or regulation or any interpretation thereof.” 38 

U.S.C. § 7292(c). Accordingly, we do not have jurisdiction 

over Johnson’s appeal. See Githens v. Shinseki, 676 F.3d 

1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

Johnson further argues that the Veterans Court’s denial of his motions constituted a “fraud on the court” and

that the decision violated Johnson’s Due Process rights

under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Appellant Br. at 1. Johnson makes no attempt to 

explain, nor is it apparent to us, how the Veterans Court’s 

decision violated his Fifth Amendment rights. Indeed, in 

his Informal Brief, Johnson answered “no” to the question 

of whether the Veterans Court “decide[d] constitutional 

issues” in its adjudication of Johnson’s claim. Id. In 

determining whether we have jurisdiction over a case or 

controversy, “the mere recitation of a basis for jurisdiction 

by either party or a court, is not controlling; we must look 

to the true nature of the action.” Livingston v. Derwinski, 

959 F.2d 224, 225 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In addition, the mere 

“characterization of [a] question as constitutional in 

nature does not confer upon us jurisdiction that we otherwise lack.” Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. 

Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we find that Johnson’s bald 

assertion here that his Fifth Amendment rights were 

violated does not confer jurisdiction on this Court. 

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, we find that Johnson’s appeal 

does not challenge the validity of any statute, raise any

issue of statutory interpretation, or present any constitutional issues such that we could exercise jurisdiction in 

this case. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292. Johnson’s appeal arises 

Case: 15-7088 Document: 23-2 Page: 4 Filed: 01/11/2016
JOHNSON v. MCDONALD 5

from a judgment in which the Veterans Court merely 

applied the law “to the facts of a particular case,” which is 

a matter over which we lack jurisdiction. Wanless, 618 

F.3d at 1336. We therefore must dismiss Johnson’s

appeal.

DISMISSED

Case: 15-7088 Document: 23-2 Page: 5 Filed: 01/11/2016