Veteran Fails to Obtain Mandamus to Veterans Court

per curiam. court dismissing gebhart's petition for mandamus relief decided: june 11, 2010 with respect to the validity of "any statute or regulation . . oliver c. gebhart, of oregon, missouri, pro se. heart disorder, gebhart presently fails to satisfy the veterans appeals] decision." gebhart v. nicholson, 154 tion branch, civil division, united states department of damus for lack of jurisdiction.1 rather, gebhart appears over any issue that cannot be the subject of a board [of relief. the waco/austin, tx, dva processing center of the justice, of washington, dc, for respondent-appellee. we review legal determinations without deference. the scope of our review of a veterans court decision court to have erred in its conclusion, we affirm. gebhart v. dva 4 and tracey p. warren, attorney, united states depart- 2005). a determination as to the jurisdiction of the vet- ____________________________ gebhart v. dva 2 . or any interpretation thereof (other than a determina- david j. barrans, deputy assistant general counsel, for the federal circuit was "unable to discern whether issuance of the writ would because it could not discern what relief gebhart sought, it june 2009. the petition referred to the board of veter- gebhart v. dva3 f.3d 1370, 1374 (fed. cir. 2000). the denial of a petition washington, dc. petition for mandamus, and argues that such denial was ans' appeals' ("the board's") "fail[ure] to recognize the the government argues that gebhart did not (1) show that gebhart filed a single page of a decision. that page rules. a corrected brief was filed after the government for a writ of mandamus is reviewed for an abuse of discre- the board to determine service connection. gebhart also gional office to determine possible service connection for a ____________________________ factual determinations or challenges to the application of ment of veterans affairs, office of the general counsel, and that is the decision we now review. denying his petition for mandamus."); gebhart v. nichol- background (quoting yi v. principi, 15 vet. app. 265, 267 (2001)). gebhart v. dva 6 hold that it is without jurisdiction to entertain the peti- eric k. shinseki, secretary of veterans for lack of jurisdiction. substitute for the appeals process; (2) demonstrate a clear veteran, that in view of the board's remand for the re- does not address the decision of the veterans court or a law or regulation to facts. id. � 7292(d)(2). erans court is legal in nature. see maggitt v. west, 202 missal by the veterans court for a lack of jurisdiction. petition for the extraordinary relief of a writ of manda- tion as to a factual matter) that was relied on by the thority to issue extraordinary writs under the all writs the veterans court in either of his two previous appeals we hold that the veterans court permissibly found criterion for mandamus that he lacks any other avenue of alex p. hontos, trial attorney, commercial litiga- oliver gebhart appeals from the decision of the note: this disposition is nonprecedential. that it lacked jurisdiction. the veterans court has au- court that the issuance of a writ is warranted, given the governing the grant of a writ of mandamus. specifically, 2002). "fail[ed] to satisfy any of the criteria governing the grant sired relief, thus ensuring that the writ is not used as a relating to a criminal case against the manufacturers of appears to be a remand to the regional office on a claim decision appealed was a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction decision of the veterans court as a denial of gebhart's 1651(a). however, the court "lacks appellate jurisdiction v. gebhart v. peake, no. 08-7037 (fed. cir. 2008) ("gebhart veterans court decision dismissing his petition for man- page; however, it does state that the "claim must be financial management service of the philadelphia finan- respondent-appellee. affirmed however, neither of these issues is properly before us, and hughes, deputy director. of counsel on the brief were he lacked adequate alternative means to attain the de- circumstance. see, e.g., cheney v. u.s. dist. ct. d.c., 542 to be challenging an underlying remand order issued by 2010-7050 fed. app'x 207, 209 (fed. cir. 2005) (nonprecedential) above development." there is no date on the excerpted cial center." gebhart argued that "[i]njunctive relief can and indisputable right to the writ; and (3) convince the jurisdiction in appeals from the veterans court rests on finally, we hasten to note for the benefit of this pro se reference his petition."). rectly found that gebhart failed to satisfy the criteria veterans claims in case no. 09-2476, judge alan g. gebhart does not state the basis for his appeal of the veterans court") dismissing for lack of jurisdiction his appeal from the united states court of appeals for he produce a copy of the contested board decision, ans court, "in effect double jeopardizing the veteran." does not address the decision of the veterans court ney general, jeanne e. davidson, director, and todd m. had filed its response. a brief titled "supplemental mer- for jurisdiction because it was unclear what decision was united states court of appeals for veterans claims ("the for service connection for a heart disorder based on "the the veterans court first determined that gebhart being petitioned from and on what basis, despite a re- appears to challenge the assignment of two different determined it was unable to conclude that any writ it aid in its prospective jurisdiction and, as a result, must of veterans court decisions dismissing and denying his accordingly, we affirm the decision of the veterans gebhart v. dva5 oliver c. gebhart affairs, gebhart timely appealed to this court. his initial quest for a copy of the decision. as a result, the court tion. lamb v. principi, 284 f.3d 1378, 1382 (fed. cir. claimant-appellant, __________________________ might grant would be "in aid of its jurisdiction." we have form of a writ of mandamus at the veterans court in the government argues that the veterans court cor- its briefs [sic] pro se et en banc" attaching information united states court of appeals 38 u.s.c. � 7292. __________________________ brief was rejected for failure to comply with the court mus. gebhart v. shinseki, no. 09-2476 (vet. app. nov. [veterans] court in making the decision." absent a lance, sr. two previous petitions for mandamus, respectively. see with him on the brief were tony west, assistant attor- son, 154 fed. app'x 207, 209 (fed. cir. 2005) ("gebhart well within the discretion of the court. however, the is limited by statute. see 38 u.s.c. � 7292. under section received no argument that the court erred in this finding, we address them only insofar as they relate to the dis- here, the court was unable to determine the factual bases u.s. 367, 380-81 (2004). the government styles the 1 gebhart similarly did not address the decision of brief. we have reviewed all of these documents. our __________________________ remand order." 30, 2009). because gebhart has not shown the veterans 7292(a), we may review a decision by the veterans court see bingham v. nicholson, 421 f.3d 1346, 1348 (fed. cir. act in aid of its potential jurisdiction. see 28 u.s.c. � docket numbers to his two previous appeals to the veter- __________________________ receipt of dpt. of veterans affairs payment voucher from in response to an order from the veterans court that gebhart filed a petition for extraordinary relief in the constitutional issue, we may not review challenges to certain defibrillators was considered to be gebhart's reply be used resolving and reconciling the unceasing use of a afforded expeditious treatment." tion." of a writ of mandamus." the court then continued that, discussion before lourie, linn, and dyk, circuit judges. nor is there anything in the record to the contrary.