NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

STEVEN L. LONDON,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2022-1503

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 19-5784, Judge Michael P. Allen.

______________________ 

Decided: June 9, 2022

______________________ 

STEVEN LONDON, Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria, pro se. 

 AUGUSTUS JEFFREY GOLDEN, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY,

LOREN MISHA PREHEIM. 

 ______________________ 

Case: 22-1503 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 06/09/2022
2 LONDON v. MCDONOUGH

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, DYK and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Steven L. London appeals a decision of the United 

States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims denying his 

petition for a writ of mandamus. Because Mr. London obtained the relief sought in his mandamus petition, we dismiss. 

BACKGROUND

On July 12, 2013, Mr. London filed multiple disability 

claims with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 

J.A. 47. The VA granted some of his claims and denied the 

rest. Id. 

On March 23, 2017, Mr. London began the appeal process by submitting a notice of disagreement. J.A. 229. Almost a year later, the VA certified Mr. London’s appeal to 

the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. J.A. 189. More than a year 

after that, the Board had not held a hearing in Mr. London’s case. J.A. 274 ¶ 3.

Alleging unreasonable delay, Mr. London petitioned 

the Veterans Court for a writ of mandamus compelling the 

Board to “render full adjudication.” J.A. 278. Based on the 

Secretary’s representation that the VA was “in the process 

of providing that relief,” the Veterans Court denied the petition. J.A. 17–18. Mr. London appealed.

We vacated and remanded with instructions for the 

Veterans Court to apply the correct legal standard in deciding whether to grant Mr. London’s mandamus petition. 

London v. McDonough, 840 F. App’x 596, 597 (Fed. Cir. 

2021) (non-precedential). On remand, the Veterans Court 

again denied the petition. London v. McDonough, No. 19-

5784, 2021 WL 4227879, at *1 (Vet. App. Sept. 17, 2021). 

Again, Mr. London appealed. 

Case: 22-1503 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 06/09/2022
LONDON v. MCDONOUGH 3

On October 18, 2021, the Board provided the relief that 

Mr. London sought in his mandamus petition. That is, it 

“made a decision on [his] appeal.” J.A. 64. The Board affirmed the VA’s denial of Mr. London’s claims. J.A. 66–67.

DISCUSSION

“A case becomes moot—and therefore no longer a ‘Case’ 

or ‘Controversy’ for purposes of Article III [of the Constitution]—when the issues presented are no longer live.” Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91 (2013) (cleaned 

up). If no court is capable of granting the relief a petitioner 

seeks, no live controversy remains. Kingdomware Techs., 

Inc. v. United States, 579 U.S. 162, 169 (2016). 

Here, there is no live controversy because the Veterans 

Court cannot order the Board to do what it has already 

done: adjudicate Mr. London’s appeal. Mr. London does not 

dispute that the Board fully resolved his appeal in its October 18, 2021 decision. He instead argues only that the 

Board’s decision “relied upon erroneous evidence.” Appellant’s Reply Br. 3. This argument is beyond the scope of

Mr. London’s mandamus petition, as it challenges the merits of the Board’s decision. The appropriate avenue for Mr. 

London’s merits-based argument is direct appeal. Because 

the Board provided the relief sought and no live controversy remains, we dismiss Mr. London’s appeal as moot. 

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 22-1503 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 06/09/2022