NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition
is not citable as precedent. It is a public record.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
05-7144
DARRELL J. HAMPTON,
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
R. JAMES NICHOLSON,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Respondent-Appellee.
__________________________
DECIDED: March 17, 2006
__________________________
Before NEWMAN, MAYER, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.
NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.
Mr. Darrel J. Hampton appeals the decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims, denying his petition for a writ of mandamus.1 We affirm.
ANALYSIS
1 Hampton v. Principi, No. 04-1487 (Vet. App. March 23, 2005).
Mr. Darrell J. Hampton, appearing pro se, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with
the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims on August 19, 2004, arguing that the VA Regional
Office and Board of Veterans Affairs committed clear and unmistakable error, and
requesting (1) a determination that he is a handicapped veteran; (2) retroactive and
prospective educational benefits; (3) a declaration that he is unemployable and totally
disabled; and (4) benefits, retroactive to the date of his separation from service. Mr.
Hampton argues that his benefits should be extended because he was not rehabilitated to
the point of employability, his service-connected disability has worsened or occupational
requirements have changed, and he has "shown dependency on governmental support
programs," in such a manner as to qualify for a serious employment handicap under 38
C.F.R. §§21.44, 21.52(e)(2), and 21.58.
Mr. Hampton also moved for expedited proceedings, stating that he was being
evicted from his home and was unable to pay the rent because the Department of Veterans
Affairs had not resolved these matters. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims denied
the petition, holding that Mr. Hampton must seek relief in the Regional Office. This appeal
followed.
A
The Secretary argues that this court is without jurisdiction because the mandamus
petition related entirely to the application of law to facts, and our jurisdiction in veterans
appeals does not include review of particular facts. However, our jurisdiction does include
determination of whether the Veterans Court is meeting its appellate obligations to 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); Lamb v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1378,
05-7144 2
1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Federal Circuit jurisdiction to review issuance or denial of a writ of
mandamus).
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary form of relief which may be granted under
the All Writs Act, if the following criteria are met: (1) the party seeking issuance of the writ
must have no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires; (2) the petitioner must
satisfy the burden of showing that his right to issuance of the writ is "clear and
indisputable"; and (3) the issuing court, in the exercise of its discretion, must be satisfied
that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. Cheney v. United States Dist. Court
for the Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004); Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for
the N. Dist. of Cal., 426 U.S. 394, 402-03 (1976).
The Veterans Court held that the appropriate path for Mr. Hampton is to file a claim
for clear and unmistakable error with the Regional Office or the Board, and advised that he
may also file claims with the Regional Office for educational benefits, total disability based
on unemployability, an earlier date for service-connected disabilities, and any other benefits
to which he may be entitled. Neither Mr. Hampton nor the Secretary tells us what aspects
had or had not been presented to the Regional Office and the Board.
We have not been shown that the Veterans Court erred in urging Mr. Hampton to
present his claims to the Regional Office and the Board. No error of law or other reversible
error has been shown in the decision of the court.
No costs.
05-7144 3