N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

I n Re CHAPLAIN HARRY FORE

, Petitioner

______________________

2024

- 123

______________________

On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
in No. 2:23

- cv

- 03610

- JMA

- ST.

______________________

ON PETI TION

______________________

Bef ore L OURIE

, D YK

, and R EYNA

, Circuit Judges

.
P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R

On April 18, 2024 and May 10, 2024

, Chaplain Harry
Fore filed at this court a mandamus petition and opening
brief

, respectively

, in which he challeng es an April 12, 2024 decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York dismissing his complaint . That complaint asserted that the Department of Veterans Affairs wrongly denied benefits for his injuries

. We first consider this court’s authority to grant Mr.
Fore mandamus relief

. The All Writs Act provides that federal courts “may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in Case: 24-123 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 05/29/2024IN RE FORE 2

aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). As that statute makes clear, however, the Act is not itself a grant of jurisdiction, see Clinton v. Goldsmith , 526 U.S. 529, 534

– 35 (1999). Here, jurisdiction over an appeal taken from the
district court’ s final judgment would lie in the regional circuit, in this case, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit. 1

We next consider whether the petition should be construed as a notice of appeal. A party adversely affected by

a judgment of a district court where the United States or
one of its agencies or officers is a party may seek review by filing a notice of appeal within 60 days from entry o f judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b). A notice of appeal must, among other things, specify the party taking the appeal and

1 Our review authority over decisions of United
States district courts is limited to certain types of cases involving patent law matters, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(1); 1295(a)(4)(C), or certain claims that fall within aspects of
the so

- called Tucker Act: “claims against the United States, not exceeding $10,000 in amount, founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress, or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2); see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1292(c)(1), 1295(a)(2).
Mr. Fore’s case does not raise any matter within that limited jurisdiction, as the complaint raises no patent issues
and C ongress has displaced whatever relief may have been available under the Tucker Act by establishing an “ela borate, special remedial scheme to handle claims regarding
veterans benefits.” Prestidge v. United States , 611 F. App’x 979, 982

– 83 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (collecting cases). Case: 24-123 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 05/29/2024IN RE FORE 3

designate the judgment from which the appeal is being taken. Fed. R. App. P. 3(c). Mr. Fore’s petition would meet those requirements and would be timely if treated as an appeal. We therefore transmit the petition to the district court to be docketed as a notice of appeal

, s ee Fed. R. App. P. 4(d) , and to the n be transmitted to the Second Circuit.

Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petition along with all other filings is trans mitted to the district court to be docketed as a notice of appeal.

May 29

, 2024
Date F OR THE C OURT Case: 24-123 Document: 11 Page: 3 Filed: 05/29/2024