Paul E. Robinson v. Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
PAUL E. ROBINSON,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-1529
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 23-5827, Judge Scott Laurer.
______________________
Decided: December 11, 2024
______________________
PAUL E. ROBINSON, Milwaukee, WI, pro se.
KRISTIN ELAINE OLSON, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice,
Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also
represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ELIZABETH MARIE
HOSFORD, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY.
______________________
Case: 24-1529 Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 12/11/2024

-- 1 of 4 --

ROBINSON v. MCDONOUGH 2
Before MOORE, Chief Judge, TARANTO, Circuit Judge, and
SCHROEDER, District Judge.1
PER CURIAM.
Paul E. Robinson appeals a decision of the Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) denying his
petition for a writ of mandamus to reverse a Board of
Veterans Appeals (Board) decision. For the following
reasons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
On September 21, 2023, Mr. Robinson petitioned the
Veterans Court for a writ of mandamus. Appx. 8–12;2
S. Appx. 1.3 In the petition, Mr. Robinson sought a total
disability rating based on individual unemployability
(TDIU) from 2000. S. Appx. 1. The Veterans Court
construed the petition as seeking reversal of the Board’s
February 27, 2023 decision “denying an effective date
before July 1, 2008, for a . . . TDIU.” Id.
The Veterans Court noted a writ is a drastic remedy
only issued in extraordinary situations when three
condition are met: (1) the petitioner must lack an adequate
alternative means to attain relief; (2) the petitioner must
demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to the writ; and
(3) the court must be convinced, given the circumstances,
that the issuance of the writ is warranted. Id. at 2 (citing
Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81
(2004)). The Veterans Court denied the petition for two
1 Honorable Robert W. Schroeder, III, District Judge,
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas, sitting by designation.
2 “Appx.” refers to the Appendix starting on page four
of Appellant’s Informal Brief. See Dkt. 9 at 4.
3 “S. Appx.” refers to the Supplemental Appendix filed
with the Informal Response Brief.
Case: 24-1529 Document: 27 Page: 2 Filed: 12/11/2024

-- 2 of 4 --

ROBINSON v. MCDONOUGH 3
reasons: (1) it cannot independently grant Mr. Robinson’s
TDIU back to 2000 because it does not have authority to
grant benefits, only to review Board decisions; and (2)
mandamus relief is not warranted because Mr. Robinson
has adequate alternative means to seek relief via a pending
appeal on a separate docket, Robinson v. McDonough, No.
23-3751 (Vet. App. 2023), that challenges the Board’s
February 27, 2023 decision. S. Appx. 2–3. Mr. Robinson
appeals.
DISCUSSION
Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans
Court is limited by statute. 38 U.S.C. § 7292. We “have
exclusive jurisdiction to review and decide any challenge to
the validity of any statute or regulation or any
interpretation thereof [by the Veterans Court] . . . and to
interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the
extent presented and necessary to a decision.” 38 U.S.C.
§ 7292(c). Absent a constitutional challenge, 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.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). Although our
jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans Court is
limited, we possess jurisdiction over an appeal challenging
the Veterans Court’s denial of a petition for a writ of
mandamus, which we review for abuse of discretion.
Hargrove v. Shinseki, 629 F.3d 1377, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir.
2011).
On appeal, Mr. Robinson claims the Veterans Court
erred by failing to grant his petition. See generally
Appellant’s Informal Br. 1–3. Specifically, Mr. Robinson
argues the Veterans Court’s decision violates 18 U.S.C.
§ 242 and his constitutional rights. Id. at 2–3.
We see no abuse of discretion in the Veterans Court’s
denial of Mr. Robinson’s petition. A writ of mandamus is
an extraordinary remedy. Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380. “The
Supreme Court explained in Cheney, ‘the party seeking
Case: 24-1529 Document: 27 Page: 3 Filed: 12/11/2024

-- 3 of 4 --

ROBINSON v. MCDONOUGH 4
issuance of the writ must have no other adequate means to
attain the relief he desires—a condition designed to ensure
that the writ will not be used as a substitute for the regular
appeals process.’” Hargrove, 629 F.3d at 1379 (citing
Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380–81). The Veterans Court’s denial
of the petition was not an abuse of discretion because Mr.
Robinson had an adequate alternative means to attain the
relief he requested—a pending appeal at the Veterans
Court challenging the Board’s February 27, 2023 decision.
Mr. Robinson argues the Veterans Court’s decision
violates 18 U.S.C. § 242. Appellant’s Informal Br. 2.
Section 242 is a criminal statute and therefore inapplicable
to veteran benefits cases. We see no error in the Veterans
Court’s decision related to 18 U.S.C. § 242, which the
Veterans Court did not interpret.
Mr. Robinson argues the Veterans Court’s decision
violates his constitutional rights, including his right to due
process, equal protection, life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness, because the Veterans Court failed to consider
its 2014 decision. Appellant’s Informal Br. 2–3. Mr.
Robinson has advanced no argument as to why the
Veterans Court was required to consider its 2014 decision
in this matter or why the 2014 decision, if considered,
would entitle him to the writ he seeks.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Robinson’s remaining
arguments and find them unpersuasive. We affirm the
Veterans Court’s denial of mandamus.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1529 Document: 27 Page: 4 Filed: 12/11/2024

-- 4 of 4 --