Judge Michael P. Allen. -------------------------------------------------- JAMES… v. DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of Veterans Af- fairs

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.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: 1 Filed: 04/17/2023

-- 1 of 5 --

IN RE: DOUSE 2
______________________
Before L OURIE, P ROST , and WALLACH , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
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: 2 Filed: 04/17/2023

-- 2 of 5 --

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: 3 Filed: 04/17/2023

-- 3 of 5 --

IN RE: DOUSE 4
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,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(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: 4 Filed: 04/17/2023

-- 4 of 5 --

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.
April 17, 2023
Date
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
Encl: Federal Circuit Form 8B
Case: 23-124 Document: 19-1 Page: 5 Filed: 04/17/2023

-- 5 of 5 --