Stephens v. Dept. Of Veterans Affairs ( 2012 )

Case: 12-7157 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 12/26/2012
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
__________________________
WILLIE STEPHENS, JR.,
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee.
__________________________
2012-7157
__________________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in case no. 12-1173, Judge Lawrence B.
Hagel.
__________________________
Before NEWMAN, PROST, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Willie Stephens, Jr. appeals from an order of the
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
(Veterans Court) denying his petition for a writ of man-
damus. We summarily affirm.
Mr. Stephens is currently receiving Department of
Veterans Affairs (DVA) disability benefits for his service-
connected claim for residuals of prostate cancer. In June
Case: 12-7157 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 12/26/2012
WILLIE STEPHENS v. SHINSEKI 2
2011, the DVA advised Mr. Stephens that because his
condition had shown improvement, his disability rating
was being reduced from 100% to 10%.
In March 2012, Mr. Stephens filed the underlying pe-
tition with the Veterans Court. He attached a copy of a
February 2012 letter he sent to the DVA asserting that he
filed a notice of disagreement with regard to a June 2011
DVA notification letter. His petition asked the Veterans
Court to order the DVA to issue a statement of the case.
According to Mr. Stephens, the DVA’s delay in issuing
him a statement of the case was “disturbing and delaying”
his appeal. In denying the petition, the Veterans Court
noted that that he “has not demonstrated that the delay
in his case is unreasonable.”
This appeal followed.
This court reviews the denial of a petition for a writ of
mandamus by the Veterans Court for an abuse of discre-
tion. Lamb v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir.
2002). A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy
and should not be issued unless the petitioner has no
other adequate alternative means to attain the desired
relief and petitioner has established a clear and undispu-
table right to relief. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for
D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004).
The Veterans Court did not abuse its discretion in de-
termining that Mr. Stephens failed to satisfy the exacting
standard for mandamus relief. The Veterans Court was
reasonable in concluding that any delay in the DVA’s
issuance of a statement of the case was not so unreason-
able that it was equivalent to an arbitrary refusal by the
DVA to act.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
Case: 12-7157 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 12/26/2012
3 WILLIE STEPHENS v. SHINSEKI
(1) The judgment of the Veterans Court is summarily
affirmed.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
FOR THE COURT
/s/ Jan Horbaly
Jan Horbaly
Clerk
s26