Case: 23-142 Document: 9 Page: 1 Filed: 10/18/2023
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In re: THOMAS L. RUSH,
Petitioner
______________________
2023-142
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in Nos. 15-4845 and
22-1168, Senior Judge Lawrence B. Hagel.
______________________
ON PETITION AND MOTION
______________________
Before REYNA, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Thomas L. Rush has filed a petition seeking a writ of
mandamus directing various relief. He also moves to pro-
ceed in forma pauperis with regard to the petition.
In 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for Veter-
ans Claims (“CAVC”) entered judgment in CAVC No. 15-
4845 dismissing Mr. Rush’s appeal from the denial of his
benefits claims for lung and heart disorders. In February
2023, the CAVC also entered judgment in CAVC No. 22-
1168 affirming the denial of Mr. Rush’s benefits claim for
Case: 23-142 Document: 9 Page: 2 Filed: 10/18/2023
2 IN RE: RUSH
a cardiovascular disorder. Mr. Rush did not file a timely
appeal from either of those cases.
Mr. Rush’s petition now seeks, inter alia, payment of
his claim in CAVC No. 15-4845 and the “declassification”
of CAVC No. 22-1168. * ECF No. 2 at 1. But mandamus is
an extraordinary remedy, available only where the peti-
tioner shows: (1) a clear and indisputable right to relief; (2)
there are no adequate alternative legal channels through
which he may obtain that relief; and (3) the grant of man-
damus is appropriate under the circumstances. See Cheney
v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C.,
542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004). Mr.
Rush has not met that standard here.
Generally, “[m]andamus relief is not appropriate when
a petitioner fails to seek relief through the normal appeal
process.” In re Fermin,
859 F. App’x 904, 905 (Fed. Cir.
2021); see also Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n,
319 U.S. 21,
26 (1943) (finding that mandamus “may not appropriately
be used merely as a substitute for the appeal procedure”);
In re Pollitz,
206 U.S. 323, 331 (1907) (explaining “manda-
mus cannot . . . be used to perform the office of an appeal”).
Because Mr. Rush did not timely raise his challenges in a
normal appeal, mandamus is not appropriate here.
Accordingly,
* Mr. Rush also requests the removal of an attorney
“imposed on him secretly.” ECF No. 2 at 1. However, the
CAVC’s February 2023 decision noted that Mr. Rush was
“[s]elf-represented.” Id. at 4.
Case: 23-142 Document: 9 Page: 3 Filed: 10/18/2023
IN RE: RUSH 3
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition and all pending motions are denied.
FOR THE COURT
October 18, 2023
Date
