Inre: Holland

Case: 13-158 Document: 3 Page: 1 Filed: 11/22/2013

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
__________________________

IN RE LEE HOLLAND, JR.,
Petitioner.
__________________________

2013-158
__________________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 09-
CV-1481, Chief Judge Bruce E. Kasold.
__________________________

ON PETITION
__________________________

Before NEWMAN, PROST, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Lee Holland, Jr. (“Holland”) seeks a writ of mandamus
directing the Department of Veterans Affairs (the “De-
partment”) to, among other things, award him a total
disability rating.
This litigation began when Holland filed claims with
the Department seeking a higher disability rating for his
service-connected rheumatoid arthritis (“RA”) of multiple
joints or a total disability rating based on individual unem-
ployability (“TDIU”).
Case: 13-158 Document: 3 Page: 2 Filed: 11/22/2013

IN RE HOLLAND 2

After the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) denied
his claims, Holland appealed to the United States Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). Before
that court, Holland argued, in relevant part, that the Board
should have recognized a number of diseases caused by his
RA medication, including gastroesophigal reflux disease,
diverticulitis, and eye problems.
On January 11, 2011, the Veterans Court affirmed the
Board’s decision. In doing so, the court noted that while
“the record does not reflect that these [claims] were reason-
ably raised before the Board or otherwise reasonably raised
by Mr. Holland,” that “the Secretary has indicated that he
has referred Mr. Holland’s brief to the RO for processing.”
The Veterans Court entered judgment on February 3,
2011. The court received Holland’s notice of appeal on July
14, 2011, 161 days after the date of judgment. Because the
appeal was untimely, we dismissed the appeal on January
13, 2012. See Holland v. Shinseki, 463 F. App’x 919 (Fed.
Cir. 2012). Holland filed a motion for reconsideration that
was denied on June 7, 2012. He now files this petition.
A party who seeks a writ bears the burden of proving
that he has no other means of attaining the relief desired,
Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989), and
that the right to issuance of the writ is “clear and indisput-
able.” Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33,
35 (1980). Holland does not satisfy this test. Holland could
have challenged the Veterans Court’s decision, but failed to
timely appeal from that ruling. In any event, because
Holland can still obtain meaningful relief on the issues
raised in his petition through the Department’s claim
processing procedures and the ordinary channels of appeal,
mandamus would be inappropriate.
Case: 13-158 Document: 3 Page: 3 Filed: 11/22/2013

3 IN RE HOLLAND

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk of Court

s26