Court Opinion

ID: 9375608
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-28 15:00:53.904633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:00.443350
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1864    Document: 15     Page: 1    Filed: 02/28/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                 HECTOR CAMARENA,
                   Claimant-Appellant

                             v.

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

                        2022-1864
                  ______________________

    Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 21-7259, Judge Michael P. Allen.
                 ______________________

       Before DYK, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
                         ORDER
     In response to the court’s order to show cause, the Sec-
 retary of Veterans Affairs urges dismissal of this appeal as
 untimely. Hector Camarena has not responded.
     On March 3, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals
 for Veterans Claims entered judgment for its earlier deci-
 sion denying Mr. Camarena’s petition for a writ of manda-
 mus, finding that the Department of Veterans Affairs had
 complied with the court’s remand order and resolved his
Case: 22-1864    Document: 15      Page: 2    Filed: 02/28/2023

 2                                  CAMARENA   v. MCDONOUGH

 benefits claim. On April 24, 2022, and April 30, 2022, the
 Veterans Court received from Mr. Camarena identical cop-
 ies of a letter from the Secretary concerning the Depart-
 ment’s policy for reporting harassment on which Mr.
 Camarena wrote that he had been a victim of a hate crime
 in 1974. On May 4, 2022, the Clerk of the Veterans Court
 issued the mandate and sent a letter informing Mr. Cama-
 rena that the case was now closed. On May 20, 2022, the
 Veterans Court received Mr. Camarena’s notice of appeal.
     Section 7292(a) of title 38 of the U.S. Code provides
 that review by this court of a “decision” of the Veterans
 Court “shall be obtained by filing a notice of appeal with
 the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims within the time
 and in the manner prescribed for appeal to United States
 courts of appeals from United States district courts.” Thus,
 before a party can obtain judicial review in this court, a
 would-be appellant must give “notice” of the appeal and
 must give that notice within “the time and in the manner”
 prescribed for appeals from district courts to courts of ap-
 peals, see 28 U.S.C. § 2107. Id. Under § 2107(b), an appeal
 from a final judgment in a proceeding involving the United
 States must be filed within 60 days from entry of the judg-
 ment. 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B).
 The Supreme Court has explained that the deadline to ap-
 peal from a district court judgment is jurisdictional and not
 subject to equitable tolling. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S.
 205, 214 (2007). And we have held the same for appeals
 from the Veterans Court to this court. See Wagner v.
 Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see also
 Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 438–39 (2011).
     Here, no submission by Mr. Camarena filed at the Vet-
 erans Court would satisfy the requirements to obtain re-
 view by this court over the Veterans Court’s judgment.
 While the May 20, 2022, notice of appeal could perhaps be
 construed as giving notice to the Secretary and this court
 that he was intending to seek review of the March 3, 2022,
 judgment, it was filed outside of the 60-day deadline. And
Case: 22-1864     Document: 15      Page: 3    Filed: 02/28/2023

 CAMARENA   v. MCDONOUGH                                     3

 while his April 24, 2022, and April 30, 2022, submissions
 were submitted within 60 days from the date of the judg-
 ment, they fail, even under a liberal reading, to “indicate
 the litigant’s intent to seek appellate review,” Smith v.
 Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992) (citations omitted), because
 they do not designate any judgment, see Fed. R. App. P.
 3(c)(1)(B), (C) (requiring a notice of appeal to designate the
 judgment under appeal and the court to which appeal is
 taken), or convey any intention by him to appeal.
     Mr. Camarena’s attempts to appeal from the Veterans
 Court’s mandate and closed case letter suffer from a sepa-
 rate problem: they are not appealable decisions within this
 court’s jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). See Krueger
 v. Gober, 251 F.3d 169, 2000 WL 1897660, at *1 (Fed. Cir.
 2000) (Table) (noting that this court does not have jurisdic-
 tion to review a clerk’s case closed letter); Germany v.
 McDonough, No. 2022-1806, 2022 WL 3147897, at *1 (Fed.
 Cir. Aug. 8, 2022) (dismissing appeal from Veterans
 Court’s entry of mandate for lack of jurisdiction); cf. Amara
 v. Cigna Corp., 53 F.4th 241, 252 (2d Cir. 2022) (“The Su-
 preme Court has held that we lack jurisdiction over ap-
 peals from ministerial orders.”).        We therefore lack
 jurisdiction and dismiss.
     Accordingly,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     (1) The appeal is dismissed.
     (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
                                     FOR THE COURT

 February 28, 2023                   /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
       Date                          Peter R. Marksteiner
                                     Clerk of Court