N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.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 P ietsch.

______________________

Decided: November 12, 2014

______________________

J ERRY D. B LANEY , of Iowa Park , Texas, pro se.

A LEXANDER C ANIZARES , Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Depar tment of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent

appellee. With him on the brief were S TUART F. D ELERY , Assistant Attorney General, R OBERT E. K IRSCHMAN , J R ., Director, and S COTT D. A USTIN , Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were D AVID J. B ARRANS , DeputyBLANEY v. MCDONALD 2

Assistant General Counsel, and T RACEY P ARKER W ARREN , Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC.

______________________

Before O’M ALLEY , B RYSON , and T ARANTO , Circuit Judges.

P ER C URIAM

. Jerry D. Blaney appe als 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.

B ACKGROUND 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 De partment 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 clai m. The Veterans Court denied Mr. Blaney’s petition. Id

. at *2. To grant a writ, the Veteran s Court explained it must have potential jurisdiction over the claims. This means that it generally “may only grant extraordinaryBLANEY v. MCDONALD 3

relief to correct egregious over sights 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 jur isdiction

. Id

. As for Mr. Blaney’s vague allegations regar ding an outstanding VA claim, the Veterans Court found that

, while it may have jurisdiction over the claim, Mr. Blaney failed to provi d e any detail about the pending claim. Id

. at *3. Because the burden was on Mr. Blaney to establish that he wa s entitled to extraordinary relief, without any evidence as to why Mr. Blaney required a writ

, the Vete rans Court determined a writ was not warranted in this

case

. Id

. Even a ssuming 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 pr ocessing 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 Vete rans Court’s earlier decision was incorrect, there was no basis to grant Mr. Blaney the relief he requested. Ther efore, the Veterans Court denied Mr. Blaney’s petition

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

D ISCUSSION Our jurisd iction 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 [Vete rans] Court on a rule of law or of any statute or regulation . . . or any interpretation thereof (other than a determin ation as to a factual matter) that was relied on by the [Veterans] Court in making the decision.” Unless the case presents a constitutional i ssue, the court may not review “a challenge to a factual determination,” or “a challenge toBLANEY v. MCDONALD 4

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 non

frivolous 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 mand amus petition that raises a non

- frivolous legal question

. . .

. We may not review the factua l 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 gover nment 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 i nvolve 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 Veteran s 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 man damus is a question of law. See Browder v. Nicholson , 177 F . App ’x 989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (explai ning that inquiries regarding the Veterans Court’s jurisdi ction are questions of law reviewable by this court). WeBLANEY 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 i ssue 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 Ve terans Court would have jurisdiction. Browder , 177 F

. App ’x at 991 (citi ng 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 jurisdi ction to review decisions of the Board of Veterans’ A ppeals.”); Cox v. West , 149 F.3d 1360, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[T]he Court of Veterans Appeals is limited to the juri sdiction set forth in chapter 72 of title 38 of the United States Code . . . .”).
The Veterans Court found that Mr. Blaney’s arg uments regarding his state criminal proceedings and the al leged VA conspiracy went beyond the scope of its juri sdiction. Veterans Court Decision

, 2014 U.S. App. Vet Claims LEXIS 736 , at *2. Because Mr. Blaney’s co mplaints surrounding the circumstances of his incarcer ation do not involve a claim for veteran bene fits, 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.BLANEY v. MCDONALD 6

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. Ther efore , Mr. Blaney’s claim that the Veterans Court failed to properly consider the merits of his case is dismissed.

C ONCLUSION 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 cas e for lack of jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED

- IN

- PART, D ISMISSED

- IN

- PART

C OSTS

No costs.