NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In 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 PETITION

______________________

Before LOURIE, DYK, and REYNA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM.

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 challenges 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: 05/29/2024
2 IN RE FORE

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 of 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 Congress has displaced whatever relief may have been 

available under the Tucker Act by establishing an “elaborate, 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: 05/29/2024
IN 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, see Fed. R. App. 

P. 4(d), and to then be transmitted to the Second Circuit. 

 Accordingly,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The petition along with all other filings is transmitted 

to the district court to be docketed as a notice of appeal. 

May 29, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

 

Case: 24-123 Document: 11 Page: 3 Filed: 05/29/2024