Federal Circuit disposition — 24-123

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re CHAPLAIN HARRY FORE,
Petitioner
______________________
2024-123
______________________
On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
in No. 2:23-cv-03610-JMA-ST.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before L OURIE, D YK, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
On April 18, 2024 and May 10, 2024, Chaplain Harry
Fore filed at this court a mandamus petition and opening
brief, respectively, in which he challenges an April 12, 2024
decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York dismissing his complaint. That com-
plaint asserted that the Department of Veterans Affairs
wrongly denied benefits for his injuries.
We first consider this court’s authority to grant Mr.
Fore mandamus relief. The All Writs Act provides that fed-
eral courts “may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in
Case: 24-123 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 05/29/2024

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE FORE 2
aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the us-
ages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). As that
statute makes clear, however, the Act is not itself a grant
of jurisdiction, see Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 534–
35 (1999). Here, jurisdiction over an appeal taken from the
district court’s final judgment would lie in the regional cir-
cuit, in this case, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.1
We next consider whether the petition should be con-
strued as a notice of appeal. A party adversely affected by
a judgment of a district court where the United States or
one of its agencies or officers is a party may seek review by
filing a notice of appeal within 60 days from entry of judg-
ment. 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b). A notice of appeal must, among
other things, specify the party taking the appeal and
1 Our review authority over decisions of United
States district courts is limited to certain types of cases in-
volving patent law matters, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(1);
1295(a)(4)(C), or certain claims that fall within aspects of
the so-called Tucker Act: “claims against the United
States, not exceeding $10,000 in amount, founded either
upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress, or any reg-
ulation of an executive department, or upon any express or
implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated
or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort,” 28
U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2); see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1292(c)(1), 1295(a)(2).
Mr. Fore’s case does not raise any matter within that lim-
ited jurisdiction, as the complaint raises no patent issues
and Congress has displaced whatever relief may have been
available under the Tucker Act by establishing an “elabo-
rate, special remedial scheme to handle claims regarding
veterans benefits.” Prestidge v. United States, 611 F. App’x
979, 982–83 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (collecting cases).
Case: 24-123 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 05/29/2024

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE FORE 3
designate the judgment from which the appeal is being
taken. Fed. R. App. P. 3(c). Mr. Fore’s petition would meet
those requirements and would be timely if treated as an
appeal. We therefore transmit the petition to the district
court to be docketed as a notice of appeal, see Fed. R. App.
P. 4(d), and to then be transmitted to the Second Circuit.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petition along with all other filings is transmitted
to the district court to be docketed as a notice of appeal.
May 29, 2024
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 24-123 Document: 11 Page: 3 Filed: 05/29/2024

-- 3 of 3 --