Case: 21-2152 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 04/01/2022
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MICHAEL S. FREEMAN, II,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2021-2152
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 21-1561, Judge Michael P. Allen.
______________________
Decided: April 1, 2022
______________________
MICHAEL S. FREEMAN, II, Colorado Springs, CO, pro se.
IGOR HELMAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Di-
vision, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M.
BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE, MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR.;
AMANDA BLACKMON, Y. KEN LEE, Office of General Counsel,
United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washing-
ton, DC.
______________________
Case: 21-2152 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 04/01/2022
2 FREEMAN v. MCDONOUGH
Before NEWMAN, PROST, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
(“CAVC” or “Veterans Court”) denied the petition for ex-
traordinary relief of veteran Michael S. Freeman, II, in
which he asked the court to “revoke the status” of Cheryl
L. Mason as a “person of good moral character,” a require-
ment for membership in the CAVC bar association. Cur-
rently, Ms. Mason serves as the Chair of the Board of
Veterans’ Appeals (“BVA”).
The CAVC held that it does not have subject matter
jurisdiction over this petition, for CAVC jurisdiction is es-
tablished by
38 U.S.C. § 7252(a) and does not include re-
view of the moral character of members of the CAVC bar.
The CAVC also observed that the moral character of the
Chair of the BVA is not before the court in any appeal from
the BVA.
This court reviews decisions of the CAVC pursuant to
38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). This statute authorizes review of a
decision “on a rule of law or of any statute or regula-
tion . . . or any interpretation thereof . . . that was relied on
by the [CAVC] in making the decision.”
Id. The Federal
Circuit has jurisdiction to review the “Veterans Court’s in-
terpretation of its jurisdictional statute,
38 U.S.C. § 7252.”
Andre v. Principi,
301 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
This also includes the CAVC’s interpretation of the All
Writs Act. Cox v. West,
149 F.3d 1360, 1362 (Fed. Cir
1998). The CAVC correctly held that in order for it to have
jurisdiction over a petition under the All Writs Act, the is-
sue must be “within the meaning of section 7252(a).” An-
dre,
301 F.3d at 1360.
Case: 21-2152 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 04/01/2022
FREEMAN v. MCDONOUGH 3
Mr. Freeman asks the Federal Circuit to consider this
petition independently. The All Writs Act provides:
The Supreme Court and all courts established by
an Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or
appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions
and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.
28 U.S.C. § 1651. The All Writs Act does not enlarge a
court’s jurisdiction beyond its statutory assignment. See
Cox,
149 F.3d at 1363 (“It is well established that the AWA
does not expand a court’s jurisdiction. Rather, as explicitly
stated in the AWA itself, the Act provides for the issuance
of writs ‘in aid of’ the jurisdiction already possessed by a
court.”) (citation omitted); Baker Perkins, Inc. v. Werner &
Pfleiderer Corp.,
710 F.2d 1561, 1565 (Fed Cir. 1983) (“The
All Writs Act is not an independent basis of jurisdiction,
and the petitioner must initially show that the action
sought to be corrected by mandamus is within this court’s
statutorily defined subject matter jurisdiction.”). The All
Writs Act also does not expand the jurisdiction of the CAVC
or the Federal Circuit. Thus, the CAVC correctly denied
Mr. Freeman’s petition and, likewise, we decline to enter-
tain his request.
Mr. Freeman states that the denial of a forum to chal-
lenge Ms. Mason’s moral character implicates several con-
stitutional issues, including Freedom of Speech, Freedom
of Petition, and Due Process. However, “characterization
of [a] question as constitutional in nature does not confer
upon us jurisdiction that [the court] otherwise lack[s].”
Helfer v. West,
174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Mr.
Freeman also states that the entire CAVC is biased
against him. We discern no bias in this straightforward
implementation of statutory jurisdiction.
The CAVC’s denial of Mr. Freeman petition is affirmed.
His petition for extraordinary relief is denied.
AFFIRMED; PETITION DENIED
Case: 21-2152 Document: 21 Page: 4 Filed: 04/01/2022
4 FREEMAN v. MCDONOUGH
COSTS
Each party shall bear its own costs.
