Alexander B. Wilson, Jr. v. Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ALEXANDER B. WILSON, JR.,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-1008
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 23-4530, Judge Amanda L. Mere-
dith.
-------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER B. WILSON, JR.,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-1568
Case: 24-1008 Document: 66 Page: 1 Filed: 11/06/2024

-- 1 of 6 --

WILSON v. MCDONOUGH 2
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 23-5354, Judge Amanda L. Mere-
dith.
______________________
Decided: November 6, 2024
______________________
ALEXANDER B. WILSON, J R., Columbia, SC, pro se.
BRYAN MICHAEL BYRD, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent-appellee in 2024-1008. Also
represented by AN H OANG, MARTIN F. H OCKEY , J R., in 2024-
1568. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P.
BRUSKIN, P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY .
______________________
Before L OURIE, REYNA , and HUGHES , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Alexander B. Wilson, Jr. appeals from two decisions of
the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
(“the Veterans Court”) dismissing his petitions for extraor-
dinary relief in the form of a writ of mandamus. Wilson v.
McDonough, No. 23-4530, 2023 WL 5542817 (Vet. App.
Aug. 29, 2023) (“First Dismissal”); Wilson v. McDonough,
No. 23-5354, 2023 WL 6057391 (Vet. App. Sept. 15, 2023)
(“Second Dismissal”). We dismiss his appeals for lack of
jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
Wilson served on active duty in the military from June
1977 to April 1978. On April 23, 2023, Wilson allegedly
filed a claim for disability compensation for paranoid type
schizophrenia at the Department of Veterans Affairs (“the
Case: 24-1008 Document: 66 Page: 2 Filed: 11/06/2024

-- 2 of 6 --

WILSON v. MCDONOUGH 3
agency”). First Dismissal, at *1. Then, on July 18, 2023,
Wilson filed, pro se, a petition for relief in the form of a writ
of mandamus with the Veterans Court, alleging unreason-
able delay in the processing of that claim. Id. However,
Wilson did not include any supporting documents with his
petition that allowed the Veterans Court to understand the
basis of his request for relief, and did not specify what, if
any, actions he had taken to resolve the matter with the
agency. Id. Accordingly, the Veterans Court dismissed
Wilson’s petition for failing to comply with Veterans Court
Rule 21(a),1 but did so without prejudice, allowing him to
refile should he be able to supply the missing information.
On August 29, 2023, the same day that the Veterans
Court dismissed Wilson’s first petition, Wilson filed a new
pleading, which the Veterans Court construed as a second
petition for extraordinary relief. See Second Dismissal,
at *1. In that petition, Wilson again asked the Veterans
Court to compel the Secretary to adjudicate his claim for
disability compensation for paranoid type schizophrenia.
Id. He alleged that the agency had denied his claim in May
1 Veterans Court Rule 21(a) for “Extraordinary Re-
lief” requires a petition to:
(1) state the precise relief sought; (2) state the facts
necessary to understand the issues presented by
the petition; (3) state the reasons why the Court
should grant the petition, including why the peti-
tioner has a clear and indisputable right to the writ
and why there are inadequate alternative means to
obtain the relief sought; (4) include an appendix
containing copies of any order or decision or any
other documents necessary to understand and sup-
port the petition; and (5) describe any public officer
who is a respondent by name and official title.
U.S. Vet. App. R. 21(a).
Case: 24-1008 Document: 66 Page: 3 Filed: 11/06/2024

-- 3 of 6 --

WILSON v. MCDONOUGH 4
2021 and that he was informed in July 2021 that an appeal
had been placed for review by the Board of Veterans’ Ap-
peals (“the Board”). Id. He also alleged that, because the
average time to resolve an appeal at the Board was 365
days, the Board had unreasonably delayed adjudicating his
claim. Id. With his petition, he included the July 2021 let-
ter from the Board that his appeal had been docketed. Id.
The Veterans Court concluded that Wilson’s second pe-
tition failed for reasons similar to his first. Specifically, the
Veterans Court noted that the second petition did not con-
tain a statement whether Wilson had a clear and indisput-
able right to a writ or reasons why there were inadequate
alternative means to obtain the relief he sought. Id. at *2.
Further, the Veterans Court observed that the July 2021
letter from the Board included in the petition “d[id] not re-
flect whether that appeal pertain[ed] to a claim for benefits
for schizophrenia.” Id. As before, the Veterans Court dis-
missed the petition without prejudice to allow Wilson an-
other opportunity to seek relief if he could comply with
Veterans Court Rule 21(a). Id.
A few days after the Veterans Court’s dismissal of the
second petition, Wilson submitted additional correspond-
ence, which the Veterans Court construed as a motion for
reconsideration of that dismissal. For the first time in that
correspondence, Wilson asserted that he had a clear and
indisputable right to the writ and that he lacked alterna-
tive means to obtain the relief he sought. However, the
Veterans Court observed that he had still not submitted
sufficient evidence to establish that he had an appeal per-
taining to disability compensation for schizophrenia pend-
ing at the agency or the Board. Accordingly, the Veterans
Court denied Wilson’s motion for reconsideration.
Wilson appealed the Veterans Court’s decisions to this
court, seeking to invoke our jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C.
§ 7292.
Case: 24-1008 Document: 66 Page: 4 Filed: 11/06/2024

-- 4 of 6 --

WILSON v. MCDONOUGH 5
D ISCUSSION
Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans
Court is limited by statute. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C.
§ 7292(a), we may review “the validity of a decision of the
[Veterans] Court on a rule of law or of any statute or regu-
lation . . . or any interpretation thereof (other than a deter-
mination as to a factual matter) that was relied on by the
[Veterans] Court in making the decision.” Except with re-
spect to constitutional issues, 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).
That limited jurisdiction restricts our ability to review
the Veterans Court’s decisions on petitions for writs of
mandamus. See Beasley v. Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154, 1158
(Fed. Cir. 2013). A writ of mandamus is a “drastic” remedy
that should only be invoked in “extraordinary situations.”
Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of California, 426 U.S.
394, 402 (1976). Three conditions must be satisfied for a
court to issue a writ: (1) there must be a lack of alternative
means for review; (2) there must be a clear and undisputa-
ble right to the writ; and (3) the issuance must be war-
ranted. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367,
380–81 (2004). Our jurisdiction allows us to “review the
[Veterans Court]’s decision whether to grant a mandamus
petition that raises a non-frivolous legal question.”
Beasley, 709 F.3d at 1158. Although “we may not review
the factual merits of the veteran’s claim, [ ] we may deter-
mine whether the [veteran] has satisfied the legal standard
for issuing the writ.” Id.
Wilson has not made a showing sufficient to invoke our
jurisdiction here. Wilson does not purport to challenge on
appeal any legal determination of the Veterans Court in its
decisions dismissing his petitions for a writ. See Wilson’s
Informal Br. at 1–2, Appeal No. 24-1008 (indicating that
Wilson has no arguments regarding the Veteran’s Court
Case: 24-1008 Document: 66 Page: 5 Filed: 11/06/2024

-- 5 of 6 --

WILSON v. MCDONOUGH 6
decision on any legal, constitutional, or other issue); Wil-
son’s Informal Br. at 1–2, Appeal No. 24-1568 (same). In-
deed, we do not discern any non-frivolous legal issue
sufficient to give us jurisdiction in the Veterans Court’s de-
terminations that Wilson had not set forth sufficient infor-
mation to warrant a writ.
Wilson does urge this court to “compel the Secretary to
adjudicate service connection compensation” pursuant to
38 U.S.C. § 1915. See Wilson’s Informal Br. at 3, Appeal
No. 24-1008. As the Secretary points out, however, that
statute relates to the Secretary’s obligations to provide cer-
tain benefits to veterans holding National Service Life In-
surance policies. See § 1915. We see no evidence in the
record that Wilson has, or has alleged to have, such a pol-
icy. In any event, construing Wilson’s pleadings liberally,
as we must, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), we
understand Wilson to be seeking resolution from the
agency on his claim for disability benefits. We sympathize
with Wilson’s position. However, we are compelled to dis-
miss his appeals because there is no basis to assert our ju-
risdiction over the Veterans Court’s determination that
Wilson had not provided sufficient information (e.g., evi-
dence of his claim pending before the agency or Board) to
allow the Court to consider the merits of his request for
such extraordinary relief.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss Wilson’s appeals
for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1008 Document: 66 Page: 6 Filed: 11/06/2024

-- 6 of 6 --