Court Opinion

ID: 9891329
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-18 13:00:46.435988+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:01.509684
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-142     Document: 9   Page: 1     Filed: 10/18/2023

          NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

  United States Court of Appeals
      for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                In re: THOMAS L. RUSH,
                         Petitioner
                  ______________________

                         2023-142
                  ______________________

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in Nos. 15-4845 and
22-1168, Senior Judge Lawrence B. Hagel.
                  ______________________

               ON PETITION AND MOTION
                  ______________________

  Before REYNA, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
                       ORDER
    Thomas L. Rush has filed a petition seeking a writ of
mandamus directing various relief. He also moves to pro-
ceed in forma pauperis with regard to the petition.
   In 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for Veter-
ans Claims (“CAVC”) entered judgment in CAVC No. 15-
4845 dismissing Mr. Rush’s appeal from the denial of his
benefits claims for lung and heart disorders. In February
2023, the CAVC also entered judgment in CAVC No. 22-
1168 affirming the denial of Mr. Rush’s benefits claim for
Case: 23-142     Document: 9      Page: 2    Filed: 10/18/2023

2                                                  IN RE: RUSH

a cardiovascular disorder. Mr. Rush did not file a timely
appeal from either of those cases.
    Mr. Rush’s petition now seeks, inter alia, payment of
his claim in CAVC No. 15-4845 and the “declassification”
of CAVC No. 22-1168. * ECF No. 2 at 1. But mandamus is
an extraordinary remedy, available only where the peti-
tioner shows: (1) a clear and indisputable right to relief; (2)
there are no adequate alternative legal channels through
which he may obtain that relief; and (3) the grant of man-
damus is appropriate under the circumstances. See Cheney
v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004). Mr.
Rush has not met that standard here.
    Generally, “[m]andamus relief is not appropriate when
a petitioner fails to seek relief through the normal appeal
process.” In re Fermin, 859 F. App’x 904, 905 (Fed. Cir.
2021); see also Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S. 21,
26 (1943) (finding that mandamus “may not appropriately
be used merely as a substitute for the appeal procedure”);
In re Pollitz, 206 U.S. 323, 331 (1907) (explaining “manda-
mus cannot . . . be used to perform the office of an appeal”).
Because Mr. Rush did not timely raise his challenges in a
normal appeal, mandamus is not appropriate here.
    Accordingly,

    *    Mr. Rush also requests the removal of an attorney
“imposed on him secretly.” ECF No. 2 at 1. However, the
CAVC’s February 2023 decision noted that Mr. Rush was
“[s]elf-represented.” Id. at 4.
Case: 23-142    Document: 9    Page: 3   Filed: 10/18/2023

IN RE: RUSH                                             3

    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    The petition and all pending motions are denied.
                                           FOR THE COURT

October 18, 2023
     Date