In Re JACKSON JEAN v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 Case: 24-120 Document: 10…

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re JACKSON JEAN,
Petitioner
______________________
2024-120
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 23-7765,
Judge Scott Laurer.
______________________
ON PETITION AND MOTION
______________________
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
On March 18, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals
for Veterans Claims entered judgment in No. 23-7765
denying-in-part and dismissing-in-part Jackson Jean’s pe-
tition for relief. On April 12, 2024, this court received Mr.
Jean’s petition requesting this court to issue a writ of man-
damus seeking relief that he previously “tr[ied] to [obtain]
. . . through [the] CAVC.” ECF No. 2-4 at 2–3.
A party seeking a writ of mandamus bears the burden
of demonstrating to the court that it has no “adequate al-
ternative” means to obtain the desired relief, Mallard v.
U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309
Case: 24-120 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 06/25/2024

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE JEAN 2
(1989), and that the right to issuance of the writ is “clear
and indisputable,” Will v. Calvert Fire Ins., 437 U.S. 655,
666 (1978) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also
Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81
(2004).
A party may appeal a judgment of the Court of Appeals
for Veterans Claims by filing a notice of appeal within 60
days from entry of that judgment. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a);
see also 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B); Fed.
Cir. R. 1(a)(1)(D). The notice of appeal must identify the
party seeking to appeal and specify the order or part
thereof to be reviewed. Mr. Jean’s petition meets those re-
quirements and would be timely if treated as a notice of
appeal. Because pursuing an appeal provides Mr. Jean a
meaningful opportunity to challenge the judgment in No.
23-7765, we conclude that the petition for a writ of manda-
mus received by this court should be construed and treated
as a timely appeal and, thus, mandamus relief is not avail-
able. See Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379,
383 (1953) (stating “whatever may be done without the writ
may not be done with it”). We therefore transmit the filing
to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
for docketing as a notice of appeal from No. 23-7765 filed
on April 12, 2024. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(d) (“If a notice of
appeal . . . is mistakenly filed in the court of appeals, the
clerk of that court must note on the notice the date when it
was received and send it to the [trial court] clerk. The no-
tice is then considered filed in the [originating] court on the
date so noted.”); Fed. Cir. R. 1(a)(1)(D). Once received by
that clerk, the clerk will transmit the notice of appeal back
to this court for docketing.
In the meantime, this court will transfer this matter to
the court’s normal appeals docket. Once it is docketed and
assigned an appeal number, Mr. Jean may raise his argu-
ments in challenge to the judgment in his opening brief
which will be due within 60 days from the date on which
Case: 24-120 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 06/25/2024

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE JEAN 3
this court receives the notice of appeal back from the Court
of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petition is denied. ECF No. 2 is transmitted to
the Clerk of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to be
docketed as a notice of appeal received April 12, 2024.
(2) The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
is granted.
(3) All other pending motions are denied.
(4) The Clerk of Court shall transfer this matter to the
court’s normal appeals docket, in which it will docket the
notice of appeal once returned by the Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims.
June 25, 2024
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 24-120 Document: 10 Page: 3 Filed: 06/25/2024

-- 3 of 3 --