N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

KYLE CASALETTO,

Claimant

- Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent

- Appellee

______________________

2023

- 1025

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 22

- 0254, Chief Judge Margaret C. Bartley.

______________________

Decided: June 12, 2023

______________________

K

YLE C ASALETTO , Saint Peters, MO, pro se.

G ALINA I. F OMENKOVA , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent

- appellee. Also represented by B RIAN M. B OYNTO N , C LAUDIA B URKE , P ATRICIA M. M C C ARTHY

.

______________________ Case: 23-1025 Document: 58 Page: 1 Filed: 06/12/2023CASALETTO v. MCDONOUGH 2

Before L OURIE , D YK , and R EYNA , Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. B ACKGROUNDOn January 6, 2022, veteran Kyle Casaletto filed a petition for mandamus in the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“ Veterans Court ”)

. According to the Veteran’s Court, “Mr. Casaletto’s petition include[ d] eightdiscernable requests for relief or intervention by [the Veteran’s] Court,” and one “general disagreement.” Casaletto v. McDonough , No. 22

- 025 4, 2022 WL 884222, at *1 , 3 (Vet. App. Mar. 25, 2022) ( “ Order ” ).

The Veterans Court denied mandamus relief for all requests and the disa greement. Three of Mr. Casaletto’s r equests concerned a different case brought by Mr. Casaletto pending before the Veterans Court. 1 The Veterans Court noted that these requests should be dealt with under thatother case’s docket number and denied the mandamus petition, apparently because Mr. Casaletto had an adequate remedy in that other pending case.

Mr. Casalet to ’s fourth r equest sought the Veterans Court’s help in finding pro bono counsel

, and the c ourt noted that as “an independent judicial body that is not part of the VA, [the Veterans Court] does not provide such services.” Id at *2

. The eighth r equest was an objection to the VA ’s rating schedule, which the Veterans Court held it was without authority to address. Id. at *2 (citing Wanner v. Principi , 370 F.3d 1124, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ). The Court

1 These were the second (“that [the Veterans] Court should certify a controlling question of law to the SupremeCourt”), fifth (“that the Court respond to all motions currently pending” in another case), and sixth (that certain records be included in that same other case) requests, as labeled by the Veteran’s Court. Case: 23-1025 Document: 58 Page: 2 Filed: 06/12/2023CASALETTO v. MCDONOUGH 3

also held that it did not have jurisdiction over the first (“that [the] C ourt notify the Senate and House Committees of Veterans’ Affairs regarding the filing of his petition”) and third (“that [ the ] C ourt exercise jurisdiction over his FOIA requests”) requests

. Id . at *2

. With respect to the seventh request (“that he receive travel pay for [Veteran Readiness and Employment] appointments”), t he court noted that Mr. Casaletto ’s remedy was to contact the VA. Id . at *3. Finally, as to Mr. Casaletto’s general disagreement, the court noted that “his disag reements are with the merits of the [VA’s] benefits decision s ,” and “ [a]s such, his recourse is to appeal those determinations by means of the VA claims and review process” rather than via a mandamus petition to the Veterans Court

. Id

. The court noted that “[t]he remedy of mandamus is a drastic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary situations.” Id . at *1 (quoting Kelley v. Shinseki , 26 Vet. App. 183, 185 (2013) (per curiam) ) (alteration in original). The court held that “Mr. Casalet to ha [d] not established a clear and indisputable right to a writ that the Court could grant in aid of its potential jurisdiction” and denied all requests for relief. Id . at * 3. Mr. Casaletto attempted to appeal to the Eighth Circuit but, after being inf ormed that the Veterans Courtcannot transmit an appeal to that Circuit, he timely appealed to this court.

D ISCUSSION This court only has jurisdiction to review the Veterans Court’s decision whether to deny a mandamus petition when that petition raises non

- frivolous legal questions otherwise within our jurisdiction. See Beasley v. Shinseki , 709 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2013); 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d). Mr. Case: 23-1025 Document: 58 Page: 3 Filed: 06/12/2023CASALETTO v. MCDONOUGH 4

Casaletto ’s petition has not raised any such questions. As such, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 2

DISMISSED

C OSTS

No costs

2 Since the close of briefing, Mr. Casaletto has filed several documents with the court, some styled as motions. We d eny all pending motions and requests as moot. Case: 23-1025 Document: 58 Page: 4 Filed: 06/12/2023