Harold Van Allen v. Shinseki

Case: 13-7057 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 04/26/2013
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
HAROLD W. VAN ALLEN,
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
Eric K. Shinseki, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee.
______________________
2013-7057
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 12-2957, Judge William A. Moor-
man.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before RADER, Chief Judge, DYK and WALLACH, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Harold W. Van Allen submits a motion entitled a
“motion for stay” and a filing on February 22, 2013 that
this court also construes as a motion for an extension of
Case: 13-7057 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 04/26/2013
2 HAROLD VAN ALLEN v. SHINSEKI
time to file his informal brief. Van Allen also files a
submission entitled “Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus.”
We deal here largely with Van Allen’s request for a
writ of mandamus, the subject of which appears to be an
order of the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia directing him to show cause why his com-
plaint should not be dismissed.
That complaint, brought pursuant to the Administra-
tive Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), purported
to bring a class action suit against the Department of
Veterans Affairs (DVA), seeking “equal expedited and
timely administrative review of veteran service connected
disability claims” and a writ of mandamus to “order the
DVA to ensure (nationally) equal administrative timely
handling of DVA service connection compensation claims.”
Van Allen’s complaint further sought certification for
a class action against the Department of the Navy, Board
of Correction of Naval Records [BCNR], seeking “an
injunction compelling the defendant BCNR [to] review the
DVA claim 29-719-334 with the newly DVA . . . discovered
facts and to correct military records and grant retroactive
disability retirement,” and a remand of Navy USCFC
case(s) back to the BCNR for further administrative
review of the new facts . . . by BCNR staff not previously
involve in the unauthorized denials of reconsideration.”
The thrust of that cause, as the district court has ex-
plained, was an assertion that the BCNR should be or-
dered to correct Van Allen’s military records to provide for
disability retirement pay and health care reimbursement
dating back to 1978.
Van Allen’s objections appear to be directed at the
BCNR and the DVA, and this court has authority to
review certain orders from those government agencies.
See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c); 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2). But
because Van Allen’s potential claims do not fall within the
Little Tucker Act as he did not waive the money damages
Case: 13-7057 Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 04/26/2013
HAROLD VAN ALLEN v. SHINSEKI 3
in excess of $10,000, and the order from which he seeks
review was from a district court rejecting jurisdiction over
an APA claim, the district court’s order is not one that he
could take an appeal to this court.
The All Writs Act provides that the federal courts
“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(a). As this statu-
tory language makes clear, the Act is not itself a grant of
jurisdiction. “While the All Writs Act authorizes employ-
ment of extraordinary writs, it confines the authority to
the issuance of process ‘in aid of’ the issuing court’s juris-
diction . . . [T]he Act does not enlarge that jurisdiction.”
Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 534-35 (1999).
Here, any request for relief regarding the district
court proceedings must be directed to the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Since Van Allen appears to have filed the same petition
for a writ of mandamus with that court already, we need
not transfer the matter, and we thus dismiss the petition.
Van Allen, however, has appealed from a ruling of the
Veterans Court that appears to involve the same or
similar dispute, is still before this court. To the extent
the arguments raised in Van Allen’s petition are directed
to the proceedings in the Veterans Court, those argu-
ments belong in his brief, which must be filed within 60
days from the date of this order.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
(2) Van Allen’s brief is due within 60 days from the
date of filing of this order.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs with regard to
the writ.
Case: 13-7057 Document: 13 Page: 4 Filed: 04/26/2013
4 HAROLD VAN ALLEN v. SHINSEKI
(4) All other pending motions are denied.
FOR THE COURT
/s/ Jan Horbaly
Jan Horbaly
Clerk