Case: 20-1679 Document: 59 Page: 1 Filed: 12/14/2020
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MARK C. JACKSON,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
ROBERT WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2020-1679
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 19-5406, Chief Judge Margaret C.
Bartley.
______________________
Decided: December 14, 2020
______________________
MARK C. JACKSON, Starke, FL, pro se.
ALBERT S. IAROSSI, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
JEFFREY B. CLARK, ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.,
LOREN MISHA PREHEIM; AMANDA BLACKMON, Y. KEN LEE,
Office of General Counsel, United States Department of
Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
Case: 20-1679 Document: 59 Page: 2 Filed: 12/14/2020
2 JACKSON v. WILKIE
______________________
Before DYK, MOORE, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Mark Jackson appeals the decision of the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans
Court”) that dismissed his petitions for extraordinary relief
in the nature of a writ of mandamus. We dismiss in part
and affirm in part.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Jackson served on active duty from July 1989 to
July 1993. After discharge, Mr. Jackson applied for reim-
bursement for the cost of a computer and Vocational Reha-
bilitation and Education (“VRE”) benefits under Chapter
31, Title 38, of the United States Code. In August 2005,
the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) Regional Office
denied Mr. Jackson’s claim for reimbursement for the com-
puter. In March 2006, the Regional Office denied Mr. Jack-
son’s claim for VRE benefits.
Mr. Jackson appealed the August 2005 and March
2006 decisions to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”).
In a decision issued on August 4, 2014, the Board affirmed
the denial of reimbursement for the computer but granted
the appeal as to the VRE benefits and remanded to the Re-
gional Office to provide VRE benefits to Mr. Jackson.
Between January 2015 and July 2015, the Regional Of-
fice reopened Mr. Jackson’s case and provided VRE ser-
vices, including by meeting with Mr. Jackson
telephonically and drafting for Mr. Jackson a plan for vo-
cational rehabilitation. After July 2015, the Regional Of-
fice lost contact with Mr. Jackson, who did not respond to
the Regional Office’s multiple attempts to contact
Mr. Jackson between August 2015 and January 2017. On
April 3, 2017, the Regional Office closed Mr. Jackson’s file
Case: 20-1679 Document: 59 Page: 3 Filed: 12/14/2020
JACKSON v. WILKIE 3
due to Mr. Jackson’s lack of response to multiple contact
attempts.
On August 11, 2019, and September 8, 2019, Mr. Jack-
son filed petitions for extraordinary relief in the nature of
a writ of mandamus. The petitions appeared to seek en-
forcement of the Board’s 2014 remand decision with re-
spect to VRE benefits, “reimbursement for a computer,”
and relief for matters not related to the implementation of
veterans benefits provided by the VA, such as “an order re-
storing his Florida truck driver’s license.” App’x 1. 1
The Veterans Court determined that it had jurisdiction
only over Mr. Jackson’s petitions to enforce the Board’s Au-
gust 2014 decision. The Veterans Court further deter-
mined that because the Regional Office had reopened
Mr. Jackson’s VRE case and provided services, “the relief
requested in his petitions [had] been provided,” and there
was no continuing case or controversy that the Veterans
Court had jurisdiction over. App’x 2. The Veterans Court
accordingly dismissed Mr. Jackson’s petitions as moot.
Mr. Jackson appeals.
DISCUSSION
First, we conclude that we have no jurisdiction over
Mr. Jackson’s appeal of the dismissal of his petitions as
moot. We have limited jurisdiction to review appeals of de-
cisions by the Veterans Court. Wanless v. Shinseki, 618
F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Except to the extent that
an appeal presents a constitutional issue, we may not re-
view a challenge to a factual determination by the Veterans
Court. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). Mr. Jackson contends that
his petitions are not moot, arguing that the delay between
the original Regional Office decisions in 2005 and 2006 and
1 “App’x” refers to the appendix attached to the gov-
ernment’s response brief.
Case: 20-1679 Document: 59 Page: 4 Filed: 12/14/2020
4 JACKSON v. WILKIE
the Board decision in 2014 “put [him] in the position where
. . . [he had] too many college credits to transfer to another
school.” Appellant’s Mem. in Lieu Oral Arg. 1–3. This is a
challenge to the Veterans Court’s factual determination
that the Regional Office had complied with the Board’s
2014 remand order, which we have no jurisdiction to re-
view. Mr. Jackson also argues that his petitions for en-
forcement of the Board’s 2014 remand order raises
questions under the Fourteenth Amendment, but his
“characterization of that question as constitutional in na-
ture does not confer upon us jurisdiction that we otherwise
lack.” Flores v. Nicholson, 476 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Helfer v.
West, 174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
Second, we affirm the dismissal of Mr. Jackson’s ap-
peal of the Veterans Court’s dismissal of the writ as to the
reimbursement for a computer. “This court has jurisdiction
to review the [Veterans Court’s] decision whether to grant
a mandamus petition that raises a non-frivolous legal ques-
tion . . . .” Beasley v. Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed.
Cir. 2013). In our review, “we may determine whether the
petitioner has satisfied the legal standard for issuing the
writ.” Id. To obtain mandamus, Mr. Jackson must show
that he “cannot adequately protect his rights through the
normal appellate process.” Lamb v. Principi, 284 F.3d
1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “[T]he extraordinary writs
cannot be used as substitutes for appeals . . . .” Id. (altera-
tion in original) (citation omitted). Mr. Jackson’s reim-
bursement claim for a computer has not been properly
appealed, and mandamus cannot be used “as a substitute
for the regular appeals process.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct.
for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004).
Third, we affirm as to the Veterans Court’s dismissal
of the petitions seeking relief for claims that do not relate
to implementation of veterans benefits. We review
whether the Veterans Court “properly declined to assert ju-
risdiction” de novo. Andre v. Principi, 301 F.3d 1354, 1358
Case: 20-1679 Document: 59 Page: 5 Filed: 12/14/2020
JACKSON v. WILKIE 5
(Fed. Cir. 2002). “[T]he Veterans Court has jurisdiction to
review Secretary decisions, appealed from the Board, made
‘under a law’ affecting the provision of [VA-provided] bene-
fits.” Burris v. Wilkie, 888 F.3d 1352, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The Veterans Court correctly determined here that it
lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Jackson’s claims that do not
relate to implementation of veterans benefits.
CONCLUSION
We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the appeal of the Vet-
erans Court’s mootness decision. We affirm the Veterans
Court in all other respects.
AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART
COSTS
No costs.