NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

LEA A. KING,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2024-1377

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 23-4438, Judge Scott Laurer.

______________________ 

Decided: September 5, 2024 

______________________ 

LEA A. KING, Budoia, PN, Italy, pro se.

 AN HOANG, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, 

DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M.

BOYNTON, MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY. 

______________________ 

Case: 24-1377 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 09/05/2024
2 KING v. MCDONOUGH

Before DYK and STOLL, Circuit Judges, and MURPHY,

District Judge.1

PER CURIAM. 

Lea A. King, appearing pro se, appeals from an order 

of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans 

Court”) dismissing her petition for extraordinary relief in 

the nature of a writ of mandamus. Ms. King2 sought to 

compel a decision from the Regional Office (“RO”) of the

Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) on her claims for 

dependency and indemnity compensation benefits, nonservice-connected death pension benefits, and accrued benefits. Shortly after Ms. King filed her petition, the RO denied her claim. Because the Veterans Court correctly 

determined that Ms. King’s petition to compel a decision 

was moot, we dismiss. 

BACKGROUND

Ms. King was married to Thor King, a United States 

military veteran. Thor King died in September 2018, and 

Ms. King filed claims for VA benefits in February 2019. 

The RO denied the claims on the ground that Ms. King was 

divorced from Thor King before his death. Ms. King appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”), which 

determined that she was not entitled to VA benefits due to

the divorce, and Ms. King appealed that decision to the 

Veterans Court. On appeal, the Veterans Court vacated 

the Board’s decision because the Board had not adequately 

1 Honorable John F. Murphy, District Judge, United 

States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

2 We use the title “Ms.” for consistency with the Veterans Court’s order. As explained below, by using this title 

we express no opinion on the merits of Ms. King’s arguments concerning the validity of her divorce from Thor 

King.

Case: 24-1377 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 09/05/2024
KING v. MCDONOUGH 3

addressed Ms. King’s arguments that the divorce was not 

valid and because there was no divorce decree in the record. 

King v. McDonough, No. 20-6996, 2021 WL 3732716, at *1 

(Vet. App. Aug. 24, 2021). In a decision dated June 23, 

2022, the Board remanded the claims to the RO. 

On July 18, 2023, Ms. King filed a petition in the Veterans Court seeking a decision on her claims, which the 

Veterans Court construed as a mandamus petition to compel and expedite a decision by the RO. A few weeks later, 

on August 7, 2023, the RO denied entitlement to all benefits sought. The RO stated that it located a divorce decree

that was entered in Kansas the month before Thor King’s 

death, and it determined that the divorce was valid. The 

decision letter stated that “no accrued benefits are payable,” but the letter arguably suggested a lack of finality by 

further stating that the RO had “made a partial decision” 

and that “[e]ntitlement to accrued benefits is remanded.” 

S.A. 13. The Veterans Court concluded that the reference 

to a partial decision and remand was clerical error, and 

that the RO had in fact denied all of Ms. King’s claims. 

Therefore, the Veterans Court dismissed the mandamus 

petition as moot because Ms. King had received a decision. 

Ms. King filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. 

This appeal followed. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292, we may 

review the Veterans Court’s decision to the extent the appeal “raises a non-frivolous legal question.” Beasley v. 

Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 

DISCUSSION

“Article III of the [United States] Constitution limits 

our jurisdiction to cases and controversies,” i.e., “actual and 

concrete disputes, the resolutions of which have a direct 

consequence on the parties.” Monk v. Shulkin, 855 F.3d 

1312, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2017). If a plaintiff has received the 

full relief sought, then a case is generally considered moot

and must be dismissed. See id.

Case: 24-1377 Document: 16 Page: 3 Filed: 09/05/2024
4 KING v. MCDONOUGH

Ms. King’s mandamus petition is moot because, as the 

Veterans Court correctly found, she received the relief that 

she requested when the RO issued a decision on all of her 

claims. On appeal, Ms. King concedes that the “August 7th, 

2023 letter from Department of Veterans Affairs was . . . 

indeed a decision.” Informal Br. of Appellant at 5 (citations 

omitted). Her petition sought only a decision from the RO, 

and the RO made a decision denying entitlement to all of 

her claimed benefits. Thus, Ms. King’s mandamus case is 

moot and must be dismissed.3

We note that Ms. King’s informal appeal brief primarily addressed the merits of her claims. She argued that the

divorce was not valid because the Kansas court purportedly 

lacked personal jurisdiction over her, because the divorce

purportedly failed to comply with international treaties

(Ms. King represented that she is a citizen of Italy), and 

because Thor King was purportedly mentally incapacitated. Ms. King further argued that the VA erroneously 

determined that her income exceeds the maximum allowable for non-service-connected death pension benefits and 

that the VA overlooked favorable evidence. We cannot address these arguments because the merits of the decision 

are not currently before us, and we therefore express no 

opinion on them. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 

U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004) (explaining that a writ of mandamus is not “a substitute for the regular appeals process”). 

To the extent that Ms. King disagrees with the RO’s decision, the appropriate course of action is to challenge it directly through the VA’s normal appeals processes. See 

S.A. 18 (“If [Ms. King] disagrees with [the RO’s] decision, 

3 To the extent Ms. King contends, apparently relying on Martin v. O’Rourke, 891 F.3d 1338, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 

2018), that the RO should have established a timetable for 

a final decision by the Board, there is no statutory entitlement to such a timetable. See Martin, 891 F.3d at 1345.

Case: 24-1377 Document: 16 Page: 4 Filed: 09/05/2024
KING v. MCDONOUGH 5

she may challenge it by filing a supplemental claim, requesting higher-level review, or appealing to the Board.”).

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 24-1377 Document: 16 Page: 5 Filed: 09/05/2024