Rashid El Malik v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
RASHID EL MALIK,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2025-1300
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 24-5450, Judge William S. Green-
berg.
______________________
Decided: July 8, 2025
______________________
RASHID EL MALIK, Palos Verdes Estate, CA, pro se.
THOMAS J. ADAIR, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
MICHAEL GRANSTON, MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., PATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY.
______________________
Case: 25-1300 Document: 33 Page: 1 Filed: 07/08/2025

-- 1 of 6 --

EL MALIK v. COLLINS 2
Before LOURIE, REYNA, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Rashid El Malik appeals from a decision of the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans
Court”) denying his request for a writ of mandamus order-
ing the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (“VA”) to comply
with an April 7, 2022 Board of Veteran’s Appeals (“Board”)
decision. Because we lack jurisdiction to hear portions of
this appeal, we dismiss-in-part. On the issue within our
jurisdiction, we affirm.
I
Mr. El Malik is a disabled veteran who was awarded
certain home modifications under the Veteran Readiness
and Employment (“VR&E”) living plan. A modification of
his award, which included, in pertinent part, installation
of hardwood flooring in his home and a light in his garage,
was outlined in an April 7, 2022 Board decision. Appx. 1-
5.1
The modification project for Mr. El Malik’s home began
in June 2018, and as of May 2022 at least eleven modifica-
tions had been successfully completed. Appx. 81. To date,
the cost of these modifications has exceeded $685,000.
Appx. 99. Notwithstanding this progress, Mr. El Malik has
repeatedly petitioned the Veterans Court for a writ of man-
damus directing the VA to implement the Board’s April
2022 decision. The present case is Mr. El Malik’s third ap-
peal to this Court on the exact same issue: denial of a writ
seeking an order to implement the Board’s April 2022 deci-
sion. See El Malik v. McDonough, Case Nos. 2023-1684,
2023-2279 (consolidated), 2024 WL 1109263 (Fed. Cir.
1 “Appx.” refers to the Government’s Corrected Ap-
pendix, Volumes I and II, which can be found at ECF. Nos.
13-1 and 13-2, respectively.
Case: 25-1300 Document: 33 Page: 2 Filed: 07/08/2025

-- 2 of 6 --

EL MALIK v. COLLINS 3
2024). As Mr. El Malik did in his prior appeals, he again
argues that the Veterans Court erred in denying his peti-
tion for a writ of mandamus he contends is justified by the
VA’s continued failure to implement the Board’s April 2022
decision, resulting in unreasonable delay, and VA’s reli-
ance on purported mischaracterizations of fact. Open. Br.
at 10-15. We concluded in connection with each of Mr. El
Malik’s prior appeals that we lacked jurisdiction to decide
the majority of the issues Mr. El Malik raised. El Malik,
2024 WL 1109263, at *1.
II
Our jurisdiction to review mandamus decisions of the
Veterans Court is limited. Id. at *3; see also Love v.
McDonough, 100 F.4th 1388, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 2024). “Alt-
hough we have jurisdiction to ‘decide all relevant questions
of law, including interpreting constitutional and statutory
provisions,’ 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1), we ‘may not review (A)
a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to
a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular
case,’ id. § 7292(d)(2).” Id.
Mr. El Malik again argues that the VA is engaged in a
pattern of violating Board orders and ignoring congres-
sional communications regarding implementation of his
VR&E award. Open. Br. at 5. The Veterans Court, how-
ever, considered this contention and ultimately determined
there was “no evidence that the Secretary is refusing to im-
plement the April 2022 Board decision” and, thus, “[t]he
issue appears to be confusion over the procurement process
with [Special Adaptive Housing].” Appx. 5. We lack juris-
diction to review this factual determination. See El Malik,
2024 WL 1109263, at *4 (“The court based its denial of writ
on Mr. El Malik’s failure to demonstrate that the VA re-
fused to comply with the Board’s April 2022 order. We thus
discern no . . . issue appropriate for our review in these ap-
peals.”). While we may review fact issues in connection
with constitutional challenges, we may not do so where, as
Case: 25-1300 Document: 33 Page: 3 Filed: 07/08/2025

-- 3 of 6 --

EL MALIK v. COLLINS 4
here, the constitutional challenge is not genuine but, in-
stead, frivolous. See Love, 100 F.4th at 1392 (“We have ju-
risdiction to review the Veterans Court’s decision whether
to grant a mandamus petition that raises a non-frivolous
legal question.”) (internal citation and punctuation omit-
ted). Although Mr. El Malik alleges VA is violating his con-
stitutional right to due process, see Open. Br. at 2, 6, 11,
his claim is frivolous. See El Malik, 2024 WL 1109263, at
*3-4 (“[Mr. El Malik] does not raise a constitutional chal-
lenge that confers on us jurisdiction that we otherwise
lack.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we
lack jurisdiction over these claims.
Mr. El Malik’s appeal does raise one issue within our
jurisdiction, namely, a purported violation of the VA’s fi-
nality rule. Open. Br. at 10-11. On this issue, we affirm
the Veterans Court’s dismissal, as res judicata bars Mr. El
Malik from again litigating this already-resolved dispute.
See, e.g., Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha v. ThinkSharp, Inc., 448
F.3d 1368, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Res judicata . . . refers to
the effect of a judgment in foreclosing relitigation of a mat-
ter that has been litigated and decided.”) (citing Migra v.
Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. Of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 77 n.1
(1984)); see also El Malik, 2024 WL 1109263, at *3 (reject-
ing an identical finality challenge as the one Mr. El Malik
presses here).
Accordingly, Mr. El Malik’s appeal is affirmed-in-part
and dismissed-in-part.
III
In its response, the government asks this court to “take
appropriate actions” to prevent “further abuse of the legal
process” by Mr. El Malik. Resp. Br. 2. In support of its
request, the government cites our most recent decision ad-
dressing identical issues to those Mr. El Malik again raises
in this appeal. El Malik, 2024 WL 1109263, at *3 n.4 (not-
ing Mr. El Malik has filed 17 suits against VA that have
been appealed to this court and dismissing for at least the
Case: 25-1300 Document: 33 Page: 4 Filed: 07/08/2025

-- 4 of 6 --

EL MALIK v. COLLINS 5
second time, an appeal relating to implementation of his
VR&E award); see also Resp. Br. at 10 (listing prior ap-
peals). In that opinion, we cautioned Mr. El Malik against
“rais[ing] this issue yet again in another appeal from a de-
nial of a petition of a writ of mandamus” warning him that
“[t]his court has previously sanctioned pro se petitioners
who have attempted to relitigate previously adjudicated is-
sues,” including by “imposing the opposing party’s attor-
neys fees” and “requiring individuals to seek leave from the
court before filing any future appeal.” Id.
Mr. El Malik disregarded our warning by filing this du-
plicative appeal. Thus, the government suggests “it may
be time for this Court to consider appropriate action given
Mr. El Malik’s apparent disregard of the Court’s prior
warnings,” although it does not take a position on what
sanctions would be appropriate. Resp. Br. at 2. Consider-
ing the totality of the circumstances, including Mr. El Ma-
lik’s repeated relitigation of the same issue despite our
warnings, on the one hand, and his status as a disabled
veteran on the other, we have concluded it is appropriate
to require Mr. El Malik to obtain court approval to file any
new notices of appeal. See Constant v. United States, 929
F.2d 654, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (explaining that court had
concluded it “cannot assume the papers [appellant] may
hereafter file . . . will be well-founded and presented in good
faith”). We will today issue a restrictive filing order in-
structing the Clerk of Court to require Mr. El Malik to ob-
tain leave consistent with what we have set out here from
this point forward.
IV
We have considered Mr. El Malik’s remaining argu-
ments and find they lack merit. Because we lack jurisdic-
tion to review all but one of Mr. El Malik’s challenges to
the Veterans Court’s denial of a writ of mandamus and his
remaining challenge is barred by res judicata, we affirm-
in-part and dismiss-in-part. Because this appeal is
Case: 25-1300 Document: 33 Page: 5 Filed: 07/08/2025

-- 5 of 6 --

EL MALIK v. COLLINS 6
duplicative and frivolous, Mr. El Malik is sanctioned and
the court will enter a restrictive filing order.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART AND DISMISSED-IN-PART
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1300 Document: 33 Page: 6 Filed: 07/08/2025

-- 6 of 6 --