NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
05-7181 SHEILA WINSETT, Claimant-Appellant,

v. R. JAMES NICHOLSON, Secretar y of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

__________________ _________ DECIDED: March 15, 2006

__________________ _________ Before RADER, Circuit Judge , CLEVENGER, Senior Circuit Judge , and DYK, Circuit Judge

. RADER, Circuit Judge

. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Clai ms denied Sheila Winsett’s informal “Petition for Rule Nisi,” which the Veterans Court construed as a motion for extraordinary relief in the natur e of a writ of mandamus. Winsett v. Nicholson , No. 04- 1448 (Vet. App. April 14, 2005) ( Order) . Because the Veterans Court did not err in treating Ms. Winsett’s petition as one fo r a writ of mandamus, and because the Veterans Court did not abuse its discreti on in denying her petition, this court affirms

. BACKGROUND Ms. Winsett has been a plaintiff in a numb er of appeals to this court concerning: the service connection for the death of Mr. Gary Jacks; the denial of Ms. Winsett’s status as a surviving spouse of Mr. Jacks; and the entitlement to accrued benefits of Mr.Jacks’ two adult children. See In re Winsett , 90 Fed. Appx. 398 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Winsett v. Principi , 341 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Winsett v. Pri n cipi , 65 F ed. Appx. 301 (Fed. Cir. 2003); and Winsett v. West , 217 F.3d 854 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In 2003, Ms. Winsett appealed three decisi ons of the Board of Veterans Appeals (the Board) to the Veterans Court, which were subsequently remanded to the Board. Winsett v. Principi , 18 Vet. App. 419 (2003) ( Remand Decis i on ). On May 18, 2004, the Board remanded the matter to a Regional Office (RO). On July 30, 2004, after a hearing, the RO issued a Supp lemental Statement of the Cas e (SSOC) and sent a copy to Ms. Winsett. With that copy, the RO included a cove r letter advising Ms. Winsett that her records would be returned to the Boar d for further adjudication if the RO did not receive any additional information from her within sixty days. See Order , slip op. at 1. On August 16, 2004, Ms. Winsett filed an informal petition, styl ed “Petition for Rule Nis i,” with the Veterans Court. Ms. Wi nsett also f iled a number of “informal correspondenc e” documents and motions with the Veterans Court between September 2004 and Marc h 2005. See id. The Veterans Court construed Ms. Wi nsett’s “Petition for Rule Nisi” as a motion for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus, which alleged that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs had fail ed to comply with the Veterans Court’s Remand Decision

. Order , slip op. at 1. The Vet e r ans Court denied t h e petition, concluding that Ms. Winsett had not proved that she was entitl ed to such a writ or that alternative remedies were unavailable. Id

. DISCUSSI ON Although this court’s jurisdiction to revi ew decisions by the Veterans Court is limited by 38 U.S.C. § 7292, review of decisions under the All Writs Acts, 28 U.S.C.

05-7181 2§ 1651(a) is not so limited. Lamb v. Princ i pi , 284 F.3d 1378, 1381-82 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

. This court reviews the denial of a petition fo r a writ of mandamus by the Veterans Court for abuse of discretion. Id . at 1384. The Veterans Court was correct to cons true Ms. Winsett’s informal petition as a motion for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of m andamus. Ms. Winsett has not directed this court to any legal basis for he r petition t hat would make her r equest for relief distinct from a petiti on for a writ of mandamus. Moreover, rules nisi are not a creature of federal law. See 5 Charles A l an Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1195 (3d ed. 2004) (“[R]ules nisi are not provided for in t he Federal Rules of Civil Procedu re.”). To obtain mandamus, petiti oner must demonstrate that she “has a ‘clear and indis putable right to the writ’” and that she “has no alternat ive way to obtain the relief sought.’” Lamb , 284 F.3d at 1382 (quoting Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976)). In addition, the issuanc e of a writ of mandamus is “in large part a matter of discretion with the court to which t he petition is address ed.” Kerr , 426 U.S. at 403 (citing Schlagenhauf v. Holder , 379 U.S. 104, 112 n. 8 (1964); Parr v. United States , 351 U.S. 513, 520 (1956) ). Although Ms. Winsett devotes a substant ial portion of her brief to restating and rearguing factual i ssues with respect to her claim s , this court agrees wit h the Veterans Court that Ms. Wi nsett has failed to explain why she cannot address the issues in her petit ion with the Board. Ms. Wins ett filed her petition with the Veterans Court only s e venteen days after the RO issued its SSOC, well within the sixty days provided to Ms. Winsett to provide a dditional information to the RO before her case would be returned to t he Board for further adjudication. Moreover, the RO issued

05-7181 3the SSOC less than one year afte r the remand of the case by the Veterans Court to the Board. Although Ms . Winsett is frustrated with the duration of this process, her frustration does not entitle her to a writ of mandamus. "The extraor dinary writs cannot be used as substitutes for appeals, even though h a rdship may result from delay and perhaps unnecessary trial . . . ." Lamb , 284 F.3d at 1384 (quoting Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Ho lland , 246 U.S. 379, 383 (1953)). In her brief to this c o urt, Ms. Winsett relies

on Stegall v. West , 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998), for a number of propositions, including that the Veterans Court can be petitioned to dir e ct the Se cretary to comply with a reman d order. Appellant’s Br . at 12. While not commenting on Stega l l itself, this court notes that Stegall concerned an appeal to the Veterans Court of a decision by t he Board, which the Veterans C ourt then vacated. Stegall , 11 Vet. App. at 269. Rather than raising these issues with the Board like the appellant in St egall , Ms. Winsett is attempting to circumvent the standard admi nistrative appellate process through her petition to this court. Because M s . Winsett has not demonstrated a clear and indisputable right to such relief or that alternative avenues of relief we re unavailable, the Ve terans Court was well within its discretion in concludi ng that Ms. Wi nsett is not ent itled to a writ of mandamus, and its decision is affirmed.

05-7181 4