Lea A. King v. Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
LEA A. KING,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-1377
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 23-4438, Judge Scott Laurer.
______________________
Decided: September 5, 2024
______________________
L EA A. K ING, Budoia, PN, Italy, pro se.
AN H OANG, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Divi-
sion, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M.
BOYNTON, MARTIN F. HOCKEY , J R., P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY .
______________________
Case: 24-1377 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 09/05/2024

-- 1 of 5 --

KING v. MCDONOUGH 2
Before D YK and S TOLL , Circuit Judges, and MURPHY ,
District Judge.1
P ER CURIAM .
Lea A. King, appearing pro se, appeals from an order
of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans
Court”) dismissing her petition for extraordinary relief in
the nature of a writ of mandamus. Ms. King2 sought to
compel a decision from the Regional Office (“RO”) of the
Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) on her claims for
dependency and indemnity compensation benefits, non-
service-connected death pension benefits, and accrued ben-
efits. Shortly after Ms. King filed her petition, the RO de-
nied her claim. Because the Veterans Court correctly
determined that Ms. King’s petition to compel a decision
was moot, we dismiss.
BACKGROUND
Ms. King was married to Thor King, a United States
military veteran. Thor King died in September 2018, and
Ms. King filed claims for VA benefits in February 2019.
The RO denied the claims on the ground that Ms. King was
divorced from Thor King before his death. Ms. King ap-
pealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”), which
determined that she was not entitled to VA benefits due to
the divorce, and Ms. King appealed that decision to the
Veterans Court. On appeal, the Veterans Court vacated
the Board’s decision because the Board had not adequately
1 Honorable John F. Murphy, District Judge, United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylva-
nia, sitting by designation.
2 We use the title “Ms.” for consistency with the Vet-
erans Court’s order. As explained below, by using this title
we express no opinion on the merits of Ms. King’s argu-
ments concerning the validity of her divorce from Thor
King.
Case: 24-1377 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 09/05/2024

-- 2 of 5 --

KING v. MCDONOUGH 3
addressed Ms. King’s arguments that the divorce was not
valid and because there was no divorce decree in the record.
King v. McDonough, No. 20-6996, 2021 WL 3732716, at *1
(Vet. App. Aug. 24, 2021). In a decision dated June 23,
2022, the Board remanded the claims to the RO.
On July 18, 2023, Ms. King filed a petition in the Vet-
erans Court seeking a decision on her claims, which the
Veterans Court construed as a mandamus petition to com-
pel and expedite a decision by the RO. A few weeks later,
on August 7, 2023, the RO denied entitlement to all bene-
fits sought. The RO stated that it located a divorce decree
that was entered in Kansas the month before Thor King’s
death, and it determined that the divorce was valid. The
decision letter stated that “no accrued benefits are paya-
ble,” but the letter arguably suggested a lack of finality by
further stating that the RO had “made a partial decision”
and that “[e]ntitlement to accrued benefits is remanded.”
S.A. 13. The Veterans Court concluded that the reference
to a partial decision and remand was clerical error, and
that the RO had in fact denied all of Ms. King’s claims.
Therefore, the Veterans Court dismissed the mandamus
petition as moot because Ms. King had received a decision.
Ms. King filed a motion for reconsideration, which was de-
nied.
This appeal followed. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292, we may
review the Veterans Court’s decision to the extent the ap-
peal “raises a non-frivolous legal question.” Beasley v.
Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
D ISCUSSION
“Article III of the [United States] Constitution limits
our jurisdiction to cases and controversies,” i.e., “actual and
concrete disputes, the resolutions of which have a direct
consequence on the parties.” Monk v. Shulkin, 855 F.3d
1312, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2017). If a plaintiff has received the
full relief sought, then a case is generally considered moot
and must be dismissed. See id.
Case: 24-1377 Document: 16 Page: 3 Filed: 09/05/2024

-- 3 of 5 --

KING v. MCDONOUGH 4
Ms. King’s mandamus petition is moot because, as the
Veterans Court correctly found, she received the relief that
she requested when the RO issued a decision on all of her
claims. On appeal, Ms. King concedes that the “August 7 th ,
2023 letter from Department of Veterans Affairs was . . .
indeed a decision.” Informal Br. of Appellant at 5 (citations
omitted). Her petition sought only a decision from the RO,
and the RO made a decision denying entitlement to all of
her claimed benefits. Thus, Ms. King’s mandamus case is
moot and must be dismissed.3
We note that Ms. King’s informal appeal brief primar-
ily addressed the merits of her claims. She argued that the
divorce was not valid because the Kansas court purportedly
lacked personal jurisdiction over her, because the divorce
purportedly failed to comply with international treaties
(Ms. King represented that she is a citizen of Italy), and
because Thor King was purportedly mentally incapaci-
tated. Ms. King further argued that the VA erroneously
determined that her income exceeds the maximum allowa-
ble for non-service-connected death pension benefits and
that the VA overlooked favorable evidence. We cannot ad-
dress these arguments because the merits of the decision
are not currently before us, and we therefore express no
opinion on them. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542
U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004) (explaining that a writ of manda-
mus is not “a substitute for the regular appeals process”).
To the extent that Ms. King disagrees with the RO’s deci-
sion, the appropriate course of action is to challenge it di-
rectly through the VA’s normal appeals processes. See
S.A. 18 (“If [Ms. King] disagrees with [the RO’s] decision,
3 To the extent Ms. King contends, apparently rely-
ing on Martin v. O’Rourke, 891 F.3d 1338, 1344 (Fed. Cir.
2018), that the RO should have established a timetable for
a final decision by the Board, there is no statutory entitle-
ment to such a timetable. See Martin, 891 F.3d at 1345.
Case: 24-1377 Document: 16 Page: 4 Filed: 09/05/2024

-- 4 of 5 --

KING v. MCDONOUGH 5
she may challenge it by filing a supplemental claim, re-
questing higher-level review, or appealing to the Board.”).
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1377 Document: 16 Page: 5 Filed: 09/05/2024

-- 5 of 5 --