Court Opinion

ID: 9403542
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 15:02:42.407423+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:07.869325
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1025    Document: 58     Page: 1   Filed: 06/12/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                  KYLE CASALETTO,
                   Claimant-Appellant

                             v.

       DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
              VETERANS AFFAIRS,
               Respondent-Appellee
              ______________________

                        2023-1025
                  ______________________

    Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 22-0254, Chief Judge Margaret C.
 Bartley.
                 ______________________

                  Decided: June 12, 2023
                  ______________________

    KYLE CASALETTO, Saint Peters, MO, pro se.

     GALINA I. FOMENKOVA, Commercial Litigation Branch,
 Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
 ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY.
                   ______________________
Case: 23-1025      Document: 58    Page: 2   Filed: 06/12/2023

 2                                  CASALETTO   v. MCDONOUGH

         Before LOURIE, DYK, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
                           BACKGROUND
      On January 6, 2022, veteran Kyle Casaletto filed a pe-
 tition for mandamus in the United States Court of Appeals
 for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). According to the
 Veteran’s Court, “Mr. Casaletto’s petition include[d] eight
 discernable requests for relief or intervention by [the Vet-
 eran’s] Court,” and one “general disagreement.” Casaletto
 v. McDonough, No. 22-0254, 2022 WL 884222, at *1, 3 (Vet.
 App. Mar. 25, 2022) (“Order”).
      The Veterans Court denied mandamus relief for all re-
 quests and the disagreement. Three of Mr. Casaletto’s re-
 quests concerned a different case brought by Mr. Casaletto
 pending before the Veterans Court. 1 The Veterans Court
 noted that these requests should be dealt with under that
 other case’s docket number and denied the mandamus pe-
 tition, apparently because Mr. Casaletto had an adequate
 remedy in that other pending case.
     Mr. Casaletto’s fourth request sought the Veterans
 Court’s help in finding pro bono counsel, and the court
 noted that as “an independent judicial body that is not part
 of the VA, [the Veterans Court] does not provide such ser-
 vices.” Id at *2. The eighth request was an objection to the
 VA’s rating schedule, which the Veterans Court held it was
 without authority to address. Id. at *2 (citing Wanner v.
 Principi, 370 F.3d 1124, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The Court

     1   These were the second (“that [the Veterans] Court
 should certify a controlling question of law to the Supreme
 Court”), fifth (“that the Court respond to all motions cur-
 rently pending” in another case), and sixth (that certain
 records be included in that same other case) requests, as
 labeled by the Veteran’s Court.
Case: 23-1025     Document: 58      Page: 3    Filed: 06/12/2023

 CASALETTO   v. MCDONOUGH                                     3

 also held that it did not have jurisdiction over the first
 (“that [the] Court notify the Senate and House Committees
 of Veterans’ Affairs regarding the filing of his petition”) and
 third (“that [the] Court exercise jurisdiction over his FOIA
 requests”) requests. Id. at *2. With respect to the seventh
 request (“that he receive travel pay for [Veteran Readiness
 and Employment] appointments”), the court noted that Mr.
 Casaletto’s remedy was to contact the VA. Id. at *3. Fi-
 nally, as to Mr. Casaletto’s general disagreement, the court
 noted that “his disagreements are with the merits of the
 [VA’s] benefits decisions,” and “[a]s such, his recourse is to
 appeal those determinations by means of the VA claims
 and review process” rather than via a mandamus petition
 to the Veterans Court. Id.
      The court noted that “[t]he remedy of mandamus is a
 drastic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary situations.”
 Id. at *1 (quoting Kelley v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 183, 185
 (2013) (per curiam)) (alteration in original). The court held
 that “Mr. Casaletto ha[d] not established a clear and indis-
 putable right to a writ that the Court could grant in aid of
 its potential jurisdiction” and denied all requests for relief.
 Id. at *3. Mr. Casaletto attempted to appeal to the Eighth
 Circuit but, after being informed that the Veterans Court
 cannot transmit an appeal to that Circuit, he timely ap-
 pealed to this court.
                            DISCUSSION
     This court only has jurisdiction to review the Veterans
 Court’s decision whether to deny a mandamus petition
 when that petition raises non-frivolous legal questions oth-
 erwise within our jurisdiction. See Beasley v. Shinseki, 709
 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2013); 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d). Mr.
Case: 23-1025    Document: 58      Page: 4   Filed: 06/12/2023

 4                                 CASALETTO   v. MCDONOUGH

 Casaletto’s petition has not raised any such questions. As
 such, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 2
                         DISMISSED
                           COSTS
 No costs

     2   Since the close of briefing, Mr. Casaletto has filed
 several documents with the court, some styled as motions.
 We deny all pending motions and requests as moot.