Federal Circuit disposition — 25-109

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re PRESTON L. SCHOFIELD,
Petitioner
______________________
2025-109
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 19-251.
______________________
ON PETITION AND MOTION
______________________
Before TARANTO, STOLL, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Preston L. Schofield petitions for a writ of mandamus
and moves for various relief, including to “certif[y] control-
ling questions of law regarding [his] discovery issue.” ECF
No. 9 at 1.
In 2019, Mr. Schofield, through counsel, appealed a
Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision to the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC No. 19-251).
On December 27, 2019, the court granted the parties’ joint
motion to set aside the Board decision and remanded the
Case: 25-109 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 02/26/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE SCHOFIELD 2
case for further adjudication.1 No appeal from that remand
order was taken to this court.
In October 2024, Mr. Schofield, on his own, began re-
questing “discovery” at the Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims relating to 19-251, seeking, among other things, “a
complete copy of the fraudulent waiver of appeal that I al-
legedly signed or that is attributed to me.” ECF No. 2-1 at
17. The court responded via email that it was unable to
identify the waiver he was referencing and asked Mr.
Schofield for further clarification whether he was referring
to the parties’ joint motion for remand. Id. at 23.
In his petition, Mr. Schofield, proceeding pro se, alleges
that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs failed “to disclose
discovery to Plaintiff in Case No. 19-251,” Pet. at 6, and
that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims “failed to is-
sue an order or provide any relief regarding the requested
disclosure of discovery materials,” id. at 7. He also appears
to take issue with the docket in 19-251 sealing certain fil-
ings that include personally identifiable information.
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and
may only issue if three requirements are met: (1) the peti-
tioner has no other adequate means to attain the relief de-
sired; (2) the petitioner must show a clear and indisputable
right to the requested relief; and (3) the court must be con-
vinced to exercise its discretion to issue the writ. Cheney
v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004). Mr.
Schofield has not met this demanding standard.
To the extent Mr. Schofield is seeking relief in his long-
closed 19-251 appeal or challenging any action or inaction
1 In 2020, Mr. Schofield petitioned the Court of Ap-
peals for Veterans Claims for a writ of mandamus to take
certain action in the remanded case, which the court de-
nied. Schofield v. Wilkie, No. 20-5890. Mr. Schofield did
not appeal the denial of mandamus to this court.
Case: 25-109 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 02/26/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE SCHOFIELD 3
in response to his subsequent information requests, we
cannot say he has shown entitlement to such relief. To the
extent he seeks relief in connection with matters now be-
fore the Board, the petition fails at least because he has not
shown inadequacy of the normal appeal process.
Accordingly
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition and all pending motions are denied.
February 26, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-109 Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 02/26/2025

-- 3 of 3 --