This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case and one nonprecedential opinion in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Additionally, the court issued one nonprecedential order denying petition for a writ of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the text from the order.
Gaylord v. Tran (Nonprecedential)
Curtis R. Gaylord appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the “Veterans Court”) denying his petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) to recognize an earlier claim for benefits and amend the effective date of disability compensation for his service connection for flat feet. See Gaylord v. Wilkie, No. 20-2184, 2020 WL 1685834 (Vet. App. Apr. 7, 2020) (“Decision”). Because Gaylord only challenges the application of law to fact, over which we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal.
Durr v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Mr. Stephen Durr, appearing pro se, appeals a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) which dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Mr. Durr’s complaint under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”). Durr v. United States Postal Serv., MSPB Docket No. CH-4324-17- 0324-I-1 (Initial Dec., May 19, 2017; Order, Aug. 20, 2020). Mr. Durr argues that the MSPB erred in dismissing his complaint for failure to make a nonfrivolous allegation in support of the third element required to establish the MSPB’s jurisdiction under USERRA. Counsel for the MSPB agrees that Mr. Durr’s pleadings before the MSPB made the required allegations. We agree with the parties that Mr. Durr made the allegations required of him to establish the MSPB’s jurisdiction under USERRA, and we accordingly reverse the final judgment of the MSPB and remand for further proceedings.
In re Johnson (Nonprecedential Order)
On December 8, 2020, this court received from R. Wayne Johnson a copy of the November 16, 2020 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims denying his petition for a writ of mandamus on which he hand wrote “void order,” in addition to a document entitled “Criminal: Writ of Mandamus.” ECF No. 2.
Mr. Johnson filed the underlying petition at the Veterans Court alleging that his benefits had been unconstitutionally withheld and that his privacy rights had been violated. The court dismissed the petition without prejudice for failing to state the facts necessary to understand the issues presented and failing to adequately explain the bases for any purported violation of law.
Because Mr. Johnson’s submission appears to meet the requirements of Rule 3(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and was received within the time to appeal from the judgment, we will transmit the filing to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for purposes of docketing it as a notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(d) (stating that if a notice of appeal is mistakenly filed in the court of appeals, the clerk must note on the notice the date it was received and send it to the lower court’s clerk).
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petition is denied.