Case: 23-1025 Document: 58 Page: 1 Filed: 06/12/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
KYLE CASALETTO,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2023-1025
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 22-0254, Chief Judge Margaret C.
Bartley.
______________________
Decided: June 12, 2023
______________________
KYLE CASALETTO, Saint Peters, MO, pro se.
GALINA I. FOMENKOVA, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE, PATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY.
______________________
Case: 23-1025 Document: 58 Page: 2 Filed: 06/12/2023
2 CASALETTO v. MCDONOUGH
Before LOURIE, DYK, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
BACKGROUND
On January 6, 2022, veteran Kyle Casaletto filed a pe-
tition for mandamus in the United States Court of Appeals
for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). According to the
Veteran’s Court, “Mr. Casaletto’s petition include[d] eight
discernable requests for relief or intervention by [the Vet-
eran’s] Court,” and one “general disagreement.” Casaletto
v. McDonough, No. 22-0254, 2022 WL 884222, at *1, 3 (Vet.
App. Mar. 25, 2022) (“Order”).
The Veterans Court denied mandamus relief for all re-
quests and the disagreement. Three of Mr. Casaletto’s re-
quests concerned a different case brought by Mr. Casaletto
pending before the Veterans Court. 1 The Veterans Court
noted that these requests should be dealt with under that
other case’s docket number and denied the mandamus pe-
tition, apparently because Mr. Casaletto had an adequate
remedy in that other pending case.
Mr. Casaletto’s fourth request sought the Veterans
Court’s help in finding pro bono counsel, and the court
noted that as “an independent judicial body that is not part
of the VA, [the Veterans Court] does not provide such ser-
vices.” Id at *2. The eighth request was an objection to the
VA’s rating schedule, which the Veterans Court held it was
without authority to address. Id. at *2 (citing Wanner v.
Principi, 370 F.3d 1124, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The Court
1 These were the second (“that [the Veterans] Court
should certify a controlling question of law to the Supreme
Court”), fifth (“that the Court respond to all motions cur-
rently pending” in another case), and sixth (that certain
records be included in that same other case) requests, as
labeled by the Veteran’s Court.
Case: 23-1025 Document: 58 Page: 3 Filed: 06/12/2023
CASALETTO v. MCDONOUGH 3
also held that it did not have jurisdiction over the first
(“that [the] Court notify the Senate and House Committees
of Veterans’ Affairs regarding the filing of his petition”) and
third (“that [the] Court exercise jurisdiction over his FOIA
requests”) requests. Id. at *2. With respect to the seventh
request (“that he receive travel pay for [Veteran Readiness
and Employment] appointments”), the court noted that Mr.
Casaletto’s remedy was to contact the VA. Id. at *3. Fi-
nally, as to Mr. Casaletto’s general disagreement, the court
noted that “his disagreements are with the merits of the
[VA’s] benefits decisions,” and “[a]s such, his recourse is to
appeal those determinations by means of the VA claims
and review process” rather than via a mandamus petition
to the Veterans Court. Id.
The court noted that “[t]he remedy of mandamus is a
drastic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary situations.”
Id. at *1 (quoting Kelley v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 183, 185
(2013) (per curiam)) (alteration in original). The court held
that “Mr. Casaletto ha[d] not established a clear and indis-
putable right to a writ that the Court could grant in aid of
its potential jurisdiction” and denied all requests for relief.
Id. at *3. Mr. Casaletto attempted to appeal to the Eighth
Circuit but, after being informed that the Veterans Court
cannot transmit an appeal to that Circuit, he timely ap-
pealed to this court.
DISCUSSION
This court only has jurisdiction to review the Veterans
Court’s decision whether to deny a mandamus petition
when that petition raises non-frivolous legal questions oth-
erwise within our jurisdiction. See Beasley v. Shinseki, 709
F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2013); 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d). Mr.
Case: 23-1025 Document: 58 Page: 4 Filed: 06/12/2023
4 CASALETTO v. MCDONOUGH
Casaletto’s petition has not raised any such questions. As
such, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 2
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs
2 Since the close of briefing, Mr. Casaletto has filed
several documents with the court, some styled as motions.
We deny all pending motions and requests as moot.