Menshack Nyepah v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MENSHACK NYEPAH,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-1435
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 23-6217, Judge Michael P. Allen.
______________________
Decided: March 6, 2025
______________________
MENSHACK N YEPAH , Olgethorpe, GA, pro se.
NATALEE A. A LLENBAUGH , Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
sented by BRIAN M. B OYNTON, MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR .,
P ATRICIA M. MC CARTHY.
______________________
Before L OURIE , BRYSON, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 24-1435 Document: 39 Page: 1 Filed: 03/06/2025

-- 1 of 4 --

NYEPAH v. COLLINS 2
P ER C URIAM .
Appellant Menshack Nyepah, a veteran, appeals from
an order of the United States Court of Veterans Claims
(“the Veterans Court”) denying his request for the appoint-
ment of counsel to assist him in prosecuting claims relating
to disability compensation.
I
In 2010, Mr. Nyepah filed a claim for disability com-
pensation for various conditions. A regional office of the
Department of Veterans Affairs (“DVA”) granted service
connection and assigned a 10 percent evaluation for one of
Mr. Nyepah’s conditions (tinnitus), but denied service con-
nection for his other claims. S. App. 42–49. Mr. Nyepah
did not seek review of that decision, which became final.
The DVA later learned that Mr. Nyepah had been in-
carcerated following his felony conviction. Pursuant to 38
U.S.C. § 5313, the DVA advised him that his compensation
payments would be reduced because of his incarceration,
and that measures would be taken to recover the overpay-
ments that had been made up to that time. S. App. at 37–
41. Mr. Nyepah did not seek review of that decision.
In 2021, Mr. Nyepah filed a new claim, this time for
bilateral hearing loss, hypertension, and insomnia. Id. at
24. The DVA regional office denied service connection for
those conditions on the ground that they were not sup-
ported by a medical diagnosis. Id. at 25–26.
While his new claim was pending, Mr. Nyepah filed a
Notice of Disagreement with the Board of Veterans’ Ap-
peals, in which he identified the issues as the overpayment
and “backpay of disability compensation benefits.” Id. at
10.
Mr. Nyepah subsequently requested the apportion-
ment of his disability compensation to his mother under
38 U.S.C. §§ 5313(b)(1) and 5307, which permit
Case: 24-1435 Document: 39 Page: 2 Filed: 03/06/2025

-- 2 of 4 --

NYEPAH v. COLLINS 3
compensation that is withheld under section 5313 to be ap-
portioned to the veteran’s spouse, children, or dependent
parents. The regional office denied that request because
neither Mr. Nyepah nor his mother had provided evidence
that she was dependent on him. Id. at 5.
While Mr. Nyepah’s request for apportionment was
pending before the regional office, Mr. Nyepah filed a “Pe-
tition for Appointment of Counsel” with the Veterans
Court, which the Veterans Court interpreted as a request
for the appointment of counsel “in connection with some
matter concerning veterans benefits.” Id. at 1. The Veter-
ans Court denied the petition on the ground that the Vet-
erans Court does not appoint counsel, and because none of
the statutes cited by Mr. Nyepah provided the court with
the authority to appoint counsel. Id.
II
Mr. Nyepah’s brief appears to be directed principally at
the Veterans Court’s denial of his request for the appoint-
ment of counsel. Although he complains that the Veterans
Court did not address all the issues he raised in his lengthy
petition before that court, he states in his informal brief
before this court that “[t]he sole ground for relief is, ade-
quate counseling for overall [illegible] of entire claim; and
recovery of all assets.” Appellant’s Informal Br. 2. To the
extent that he seeks to raise the issue of the denial of ap-
portionment of his disability compensation to his mother or
his claims for service connection for conditions other than
tinnitus, those claims have not been addressed by the
Board of Veterans’ Appeals and thus were not properly be-
fore the Veterans Court.
As in the case of his other claims, Mr. Nyepah’s request
for the appointment of counsel was not properly before the
Veterans Court, because he has no appeal pending in that
court. To the extent that his petition before that court is
treated as a petition for a writ of mandamus, he has failed
to satisfy the exacting requirements for obtaining
Case: 24-1435 Document: 39 Page: 3 Filed: 03/06/2025

-- 3 of 4 --

NYEPAH v. COLLINS 4
mandamus relief, which include the requirement that the
petitioner demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to
the writ and show that the writ is appropriate under the
circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367,
380–81 (2004).
The Veterans Court’s ruling that it lacks authority to
appoint counsel was consistent with that court’s prior prec-
edent, see Henderson v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 272, 278
(1997), and Mr. Nyepah has not pointed to any regulatory,
statutory, or constitutional authority to the contrary. See,
e.g., Pitts v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d 1279, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(holding that a claimant for veterans’ benefits does not
have a due process right to the effective assistance of coun-
sel); Arnesen v. Principi, 300 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir.
2002) (no constitutional right to the assistance of counsel
in civil cases not involving the risk of loss of liberty). We
therefore reject Mr. Nyepah’s contention that the Veterans
Court erred by not appointing counsel for him.
No costs.
AFFIRMED
Case: 24-1435 Document: 39 Page: 4 Filed: 03/06/2025

-- 4 of 4 --