NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

______________________ 

KYLE CASALETTO, Saint Peters, MO, pro se.

 GALINA I. FOMENKOVA, Commercial Litigation Branch,

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by 

BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE, PATRICIA M.

MCCARTHY. 

______________________ 

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

Before LOURIE, DYK, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

BACKGROUND

On 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] eight 

discernable requests for relief or intervention by [the Veteran’s] Court,” and one “general disagreement.” Casaletto 

v. McDonough, No. 22-0254, 2022 WL 884222, at *1, 3 (Vet. 

App. Mar. 25, 2022) (“Order”). 

The Veterans Court denied mandamus relief for all requests and the disagreement. Three of Mr. Casaletto’s requests 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 that 

other case’s docket number and denied the mandamus petition, apparently because Mr. Casaletto had an adequate 

remedy in that other pending case. 

Mr. Casaletto’s fourth request sought the Veterans 

Court’s help in finding pro bono counsel, and the court 

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 request 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 Supreme 

Court”), 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: 06/12/2023
CASALETTO v. MCDONOUGH 3

also held that it did not have jurisdiction over the first

(“that [the] Court notify the Senate and House Committees 

of Veterans’ Affairs regarding the filing of his petition”) and 

third (“that [the] Court 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”), the 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 disagreements are with the merits of the 

[VA’s] benefits decisions,” 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. Casaletto 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 informed that the Veterans Court 

cannot transmit an appeal to that Circuit, he timely appealed to this court. 

DISCUSSION

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: 06/12/2023
4 CASALETTO v. MCDONOUGH

Casaletto’s petition has not raised any such questions. As 

such, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.2

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs

 

2 Since the close of briefing, Mr. Casaletto has filed 

several documents with the court, some styled as motions. 

We deny all pending motions and requests as moot.

Case: 23-1025 Document: 58 Page: 4 Filed: 06/12/2023