NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JERRY D. BLANEY,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee.

______________________ 

2014-7089

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 14-789, Judge Coral Wong Pietsch.

______________________ 

Decided: November 12, 2014

______________________ 

JERRY D. BLANEY, of Iowa Park, Texas, pro se. 

ALEXANDER CANIZARES, Trial Attorney, Commercial 

Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondentappellee. With him on the brief were STUART F. DELERY, 

Assistant Attorney General, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,

Director, and SCOTT D. AUSTIN, Assistant Director. Of 

counsel on the brief were DAVID J. BARRANS, Deputy 
2 BLANEY v. MCDONALD

Assistant General Counsel, and TRACEY PARKER WARREN, 

Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, 

of Washington, DC. 

______________________ 

Before O’MALLEY, BRYSON, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Jerry D. Blaney appeals an order of the United States 

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) 

denying his petition for writ of mandamus. See Blaney v. 

Shinseki, No. 14-0789, U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 736 

(Vet. App. Apr. 30, 2014) (“Veterans Court Decision”). We

affirm the Veterans Court’s decision to dismiss Mr. 

Blaney’s claims regarding his state criminal proceedings

for lack of jurisdiction and dismiss Mr. Blaney’s appeal 

relating to the merits of his case for lack of jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

On February 28, 2014, Mr. Blaney filed a petition for 

extraordinary relief in the form of a writ of mandamus at 

the Veterans Court. Veterans Court Decision, 2014 U.S. 

App. Vet Claims LEXIS 736, at *1. In his petition, Mr. 

Blaney asserted that he was a victim of a Department of 

Veterans Affairs (“VA”) conspiracy, which led to his 

unlawful state criminal conviction and incarceration in 

Texas. To unravel the plot against him, Mr. Blaney 

requested that the Veterans Court convene a special 

investigating committee, enter summary judgment on his 

claims, and issue an order that would enable Mr. Blaney 

to sue the Veterans Court and the VA. Id. Mr. Blaney 

also asked for assistance in resolving a thirteen-year-old 

VA claim.

The Veterans Court denied Mr. Blaney’s petition. Id. 

at *2. To grant a writ, the Veterans Court explained it 

must have potential jurisdiction over the claims. This 

means that it generally “may only grant extraordinary 
BLANEY v. MCDONALD 3

relief to correct egregious oversights or errors in the VA 

adjudicatory process.” Id. With respect to Mr. Blaney’s 

complaints “about his state criminal proceedings and 

alleged conspiracies perpetrated by VA officials,” the 

Veterans Court concluded they fell outside the scope of its 

jurisdiction. Id. 

As for Mr. Blaney’s vague allegations regarding an 

outstanding VA claim, the Veterans Court found that, 

while it may have jurisdiction over the claim, Mr. Blaney 

failed to provide any detail about the pending claim. Id.

at *3. Because the burden was on Mr. Blaney to establish 

that he was entitled to extraordinary relief, without any 

evidence as to why Mr. Blaney required a writ, the Veterans Court determined a writ was not warranted in this 

case. Id. Even assuming arguendo that the VA claim 

referenced by Mr. Blaney was one of his pending VA 

claims, the Veterans Court further explained it had 

recently determined that the VA was adequately processing these claims. Id. at *4 (citing Blaney v. Shinseki, 

No. 13-3040, 2014 U.S. App. Vet Claims LEXIS 115 (Vet. 

App. Jan. 29, 2014)). Thus, absent proof that the Veterans Court’s earlier decision was incorrect, there was no 

basis to grant Mr. Blaney the relief he requested. Therefore, the Veterans Court denied Mr. Blaney’s petition. 

Mr. Blaney timely appealed the Veterans Court’s decision to this court.

DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction to review Veterans Court decisions is 

limited by statute. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), the 

court may review “the validity of a decision of the [Veterans] Court on a rule of law or of any statute or regulation 

. . . or any interpretation thereof (other than a determination as to a factual matter) that was relied on by the 

[Veterans] Court in making the decision.” Unless the case 

presents a constitutional issue, the court may not review 

“a challenge to a factual determination,” or “a challenge to 
4 BLANEY v. MCDONALD

a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular 

case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). For appeals involving a 

denial of a petition for writ of mandamus, the court has 

jurisdiction to review the denial if it involves a nonfrivolous legal question. See Beasley v. Shineski, 709 F.3d 

1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“This court has jurisdiction to 

review the CAVC’s decision whether to grant a mandamus petition that raises a non-frivolous legal question . . . 

. We may not review the factual merits of the veteran’s 

claim . . . .”); see also Lamb v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1378, 

1381-82 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Such legal determinations are 

reviewed without deference. Prenzler v. Derwinski, 928 

F.2d 392, 393 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 

Here, the government argues that the court should 

dismiss Mr. Blaney’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, citing 

Mr. Blaney’s own admission in his opening brief that the 

Veterans Court’s decision did not involve the validity or 

interpretation of a statute or regulation and did not 

decide a constitutional issue. Appellee Br. at 7–8. While 

Mr. Blaney does indicate in his informal brief that the 

Veterans Court decision did not involve a purely legal 

question, it is clear he believes that this court has the 

ability to help him. In his appeal, Mr. Blaney alleges that

the Veterans Court had no grounds to dismiss his case for 

lack of jurisdiction. Appellant Reply at 2. Mr. Blaney 

also contends that the Veterans Court erred when it failed 

to properly consider the merits of his appeal, arguing his 

petition should have been granted because the facts of his 

case are extraordinary. Id. 

A. Jurisdiction

Whether the Veterans Court had jurisdiction to issue 

a writ of mandamus is a question of law. See Browder v. 

Nicholson, 177 F. App’x 989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (explaining that inquiries regarding the Veterans Court’s jurisdiction are questions of law reviewable by this court). We 
BLANEY v. MCDONALD 5

therefore may review the Veterans Court’s jurisdictional 

analysis.

Under the All Writs Act, “all courts established by Act 

of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate 

in aid of their respective jurisdiction[].” 28 U.S.C. § 1651. 

With respect to the Veterans Court, its ability to issue a 

writ of mandamus depends upon its potential jurisdiction, 

not its actual jurisdiction. See In re Fee Agreement of Cox, 

10 Vet. App. 361, 370–71 (Vet. App. 1997). Accordingly, 

the Veterans Court lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of 

mandamus if the grant of the petition could not lead to a 

Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision over which the Veterans Court would have jurisdiction. Browder, 177 F. 

App’x at 991 (citing Yi v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 265, 267 

(Vet. App. 2001)); see 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a) (“The Court of 

Appeals for Veterans Claims shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review decisions of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals.”); Cox v. West, 149 F.3d 1360, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 

(“[T]he Court of Veterans Appeals is limited to the jurisdiction set forth in chapter 72 of title 38 of the United 

States Code . . . .”).

The Veterans Court found that Mr. Blaney’s arguments regarding his state criminal proceedings and the 

alleged VA conspiracy went beyond the scope of its jurisdiction. Veterans Court Decision, 2014 U.S. App. Vet 

Claims LEXIS 736, at *2. Because Mr. Blaney’s complaints surrounding the circumstances of his incarceration do not involve a claim for veteran benefits, the 

Veterans Court did not have jurisdiction to grant Mr. 

Blaney’s petition as to these claims. See 38 U.S.C. § 7104 

(describing the jurisdiction of the Board of Veterans’ 

Appeals). Accordingly, the Veterans Court did not err 

when it dismissed this portion of Mr. Blaney’s petition for 

lack of jurisdiction. 
6 BLANEY v. MCDONALD

B. Conditions for a Writ

Whether Mr. Blaney satisfied the requirements for a 

writ of mandamus is a challenge to the Veterans Court’s 

application of law to facts. In his appeal, Mr. Blaney also 

argues that the facts of his case entitle to him to a writ of 

mandamus, and asks the court to reevaluate his case. 

This allegation, however, goes beyond the scope of the 

court’s jurisdiction. See Beasley, 709 F.3d at 1158. Therefore, Mr. Blaney’s claim that the Veterans Court failed to 

properly consider the merits of his case is dismissed. 

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, we affirm the Veterans 

Court’s decision regarding jurisdiction and dismiss Mr. 

Blaney’s appeal relating to the merits of his case for lack 

of jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART, DISMISSED-IN-PART

COSTS

No costs.