Court Opinion

ID: 9387271
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-17 15:00:55.307739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:12.509212
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-124    Document: 19-1     Page: 1   Filed: 04/17/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

    United States Court of Appeals
        for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

          In re: JAMES NATHANIEL DOUSE,
                         Petitioner
                  ______________________

                         2023-124
                  ______________________

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
 Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 21-6678,
 Judge Michael P. Allen.
           --------------------------------------------------

               JAMES NATHANIEL DOUSE,
                   Claimant-Appellant

                             v.

   DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of Veterans Af-
                     fairs,
              Respondent-Appellee
             ______________________

                        2023-1567
                  ______________________

    Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 21-6678, Judge Michael P. Allen.
                 ______________________

               ON PETITION AND MOTION
Case: 23-124    Document: 19-1     Page: 2    Filed: 04/17/2023

 2                                               IN RE: DOUSE

                   ______________________

     Before LOURIE, PROST, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
                         ORDER
     Before this court are James Nathaniel Douse’s petition
 for mandamus, Appeal No. 2023-124, ECF No. 2, and mo-
 tions for various relief in that case and in Appeal No. 2023-
 1567.
     In 2021, Mr. Douse filed a petition at the United States
 Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims seeking a writ of
 mandamus directing, among other things, compensation
 for sciatic nerve paralysis, special monthly compensation,
 and adjudication of his disability claims that had been re-
 manded to the regional office in an April 2018 Board of Vet-
 erans’ Appeals decision. On October 24, 2022, the Veterans
 Court granted-in-part the petition, ordering the Secretary
 of Veterans Affairs to adjudicate the previously remanded
 claims and issue a rating decision within 60 days of its or-
 der. The Veterans Court entered judgment on November
 15, 2022.
     On January 7, 2023, Mr. Douse filed a motion at the
 Veterans Court seeking sanctions against the Secretary.
 On February 15, 2023, the Veterans Court denied Mr.
 Douse’s motion. On February 17, 2023, Mr. Douse filed a
 timely notice of appeal at the Veterans Court from the Feb-
 ruary 15, 2023, sanctions decision. That appeal has been
 docketed at this court as Appeal No. 2023-1567. On March
 7, 2023, Mr. Douse filed a mandamus petition at this court
 (docketed as Appeal No. 2023-124), challenging adjudica-
 tion of the remanded claims and seeking compensation for
 sciatic nerve paralysis and special monthly compensation.
 See Pet. at 2.
    Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available only
 where the petitioner shows: (1) a clear and indisputable
Case: 23-124    Document: 19-1      Page: 3    Filed: 04/17/2023

 IN RE: DOUSE                                                 3

 right to relief; (2) there are no adequate alternative legal
 channels through which he may obtain that relief; and (3)
 mandamus is appropriate under the circumstances. See
 Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81
 (2004). Mr. Douse has not met that standard.
     Mr. Douse has not shown that the only adequate way
 for him to obtain his requested relief with regard to his dis-
 ability benefits claims is through a petition for mandamus
 relief. 1 Mr. Douse did not timely appeal from the Veterans
 Court’s October 24, 2022, decision, and generally “[m]an-
 damus relief is not appropriate when a petitioner fails to
 seek relief through the normal appeal process,” In re Fer-
 min, 859 F. App’x 904, 905 (Fed. Cir. 2021); see also Roche
 v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S. 21, 26 (1943). Moreo-
 ver, to the extent the agency may decide against Mr. Douse
 on his claims, established procedures exist to challenge
 such decisions.
      However, Mr. Douse can challenge the Veterans
 Court’s denial of sanctions through his Appeal (No. 2023-
 1567). We note that Mr. Douse had moved to apply the
 filing fee paid for that appeal to his mandamus petition and
 to “close” his appeal. 2 In light of our decision today denying

     1    We need not determine whether we would have
 otherwise had jurisdiction to review Mr. Douse’s argu-
 ments on the merits, see 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), given that he
 has failed to meet the lack of adequate alternative avenues
 for relief (a “threshold, nonmerits issue”). See Sinochem
 Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Co., 549 U.S. 422, 433
 (2007).

     2    Mr. Douse has paid to the Veterans Court the filing
 fee for Appeal No. 2023-1567 and has paid to this court the
 filing fee for his mandamus petition. Mr. Douse indicates
 that he also submitted payment to the Veterans Court for
 the mandamus petition filing fee, Appeal No. 2023-124,
Case: 23-124    Document: 19-1      Page: 4    Filed: 04/17/2023

 4                                                IN RE: DOUSE

 his petition, we deny that request. Mr. Douse’s other mo-
 tions appear to argue the merits of his pending appeal. The
 court’s typical practice is to decide the merits of the appeal
 on the briefs submitted, and Mr. Douse has not demon-
 strated that the court should depart from that practice
 here. The motions therefore are denied, and Mr. Douse
 should raise his arguments in his forthcoming briefing in
 Appeal No. 2023-1567.
     Lastly, the court notes that Mr. Douse’s Notice of Un-
 represented Person Appearance (Federal Circuit Form 8B)
 is non-compliant because it does not match the information
 on Mr. Douse’s PACER account—the apartment numbers
 are different. Mr. Douse is directed to file a corrected No-
 tice of Unrepresented Person Appearance in Appeal No.
 2023-1567 and to use the court’s current version of that
 form (enclosed).
     Accordingly,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     (1) The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
     (2) All motions in both cases are denied without preju-
 dice to raising arguments on the merits in the briefing in
 Appeal No. 2023-1567.
      (3) In Appeal No. 2023-1567, Mr. Douse is directed to
 file a corrected Federal Circuit Form 8B (attached), reme-
 dying the above-identified deficiencies, within 30 days of
 the date of filing of this order.

 ECF Nos. 11 and 13, and to the extent he seeks a refund of
 that duplicative payment, any such request should be
 made to the Veterans Court.
Case: 23-124      Document: 19-1   Page: 5   Filed: 04/17/2023

 IN RE: DOUSE                                              5

     (4) Mr. Douse’s opening brief in Appeal No. 2023-1567
 is due no later than 60 days from the date of filing of this
 order.
                                   FOR THE COURT

 April 17, 2023                     /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
      Date                          Peter R. Marksteiner
                                    Clerk of Court

 Encl: Federal Circuit Form 8B