In re: BURL ANDERSON HOWELL v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 1989 holding that a party…

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In re: BURL ANDERSON HOWELL,
Petitioner
______________________
2024-101
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 23-1119,
Judge Joseph L. Falvey, Jr.
______________________
ON PETITION AND MOTION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
On October 2, 2023, Burl Anderson Howell filed this
petition for a writ of mandamus “for review of the interloc-
utory Order of August 4, 2023 in the [United States] Court
of Appeals for Veterans Claims.” Pet. at 1. Mr. Howell also
moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Mr. Howell filed an appeal with the Veterans Court re-
garding an earlier Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision. On
July 18, 2023, a single judge issued a decision dismissing
the appeal. Mr. Howell’s motion for single judge reconsid-
eration was denied on August 4, 2023. And, after granting
Case: 24-101 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 11/07/2023

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE: HOWELL 2
reconsideration, a panel of the court affirmed the single-
judge order on October 11, 2023.
As a threshold matter, we must consider whether Mr.
Howell has an alternative adequate means by which to
challenge the decision of the Veterans Court. See Mallard
v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309
(1989) (holding that a party seeking a writ bears the bur-
den of proving that it has no other means of attaining the
relief, such as by appeal); Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Hol-
land, 346 U.S. 379, 383 (1953) (stating “whatever may be
done without the writ may not be done with it”).
To appeal a judgment of the Veterans Court as a mat-
ter of right, a party must file a timely notice of appeal. To
satisfy that requirement, the notice must set forth (1) the
party taking the appeal, (2) the judgment, order, or part
thereof being appealed, and (3) the name of the court to
which the appeal is taken. Fed. R. App. P. 3(c); see Fed.
Cir. R. 1(a)(1)(D). Mr. Howell’s petition meets these re-
quirements. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 181–82
(1962). And if treated as a notice, instead of a mandamus
petition, his appeal would now be deemed timely. 38
U.S.C. § 7292; 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); FirsTier Mortg. Co. v.
Invs. Mortg. Ins. Co., 498 U.S. 269, 272–73 (1991).
Because we conclude Mr. Howell’s submission allows
him to pursue his challenge to the Veterans Court’s judg-
ment on direct appeal, it follows that mandamus relief is
not appropriate, since such relief is available only when a
party has no other adequate means to obtain relief. We
therefore deny the petition and forward the submission to
the Veterans Court to be docketed as a notice of appeal.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The petition is denied because the matter is treated
as a timely notice of appeal. The Clerk of Court shall for-
ward ECF No. 2 to the United States Court of Appeals for
Case: 24-101 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 11/07/2023

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE: HOWELL 3
Veterans Claims for docketing as a notice of appeal, filed
on October 2, 2023.
(2) The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
is granted. No fee is required for Mr. Howell’s new appeal.
November 7, 2023
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 24-101 Document: 8 Page: 3 Filed: 11/07/2023

-- 3 of 3 --