Larry Belton, Sr. v. Shinseki
524 F. App'x 703
Fed. Cir.2013Background
- Belton appeals the Veterans Court's denial of a mandamus petition seeking extraordinary relief.
- Belton's petition claimed wrongdoing by VA personnel regarding apportionment benefits, a vision-loss claim, record production, and potential FTCA action and damages.
- The Veterans Court applied Cheney v. United States District Court's three-part mandamus test and denied relief.
- The court concluded Belton failed to show no adequate alternative, a clear and indisputable right, and that writ issuance was warranted.
- This court reviews only non-frivolous legal questions about mandamus and dismisses for lack of jurisdiction when none exist.
- The appellate court dismissed Belton's appeal with costs to be borne by each party.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Belton raised a non-frivolous legal question | Belton | Shinseki | No non-frivolous legal question shown |
| Whether constitutional or statutory interpretations were at stake | Belton | Beasley/Shinseki | No constitutional/statutory issue presented |
| Whether the Veterans Court properly applied Cheney's three conditions | Belton | Shinseki | Three conditions not satisfied |
| Whether Belton's claims fall within mandamus jurisdiction | Belton | Shinseki | Jurisdiction lacking; petition dismissed |
| Whether merits-related factual challenges or damages claims are reviewable | Belton | Shinseki | Not reviewable; outside Veterans Court's jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheney v. United States District Court, 542 U.S. 367 (S. Ct. 2004) (mandamus criteria require no adequate alternative, clear right, and warranted writ)
- Beasley v. Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (review limits: mandamus for non-frivolous legal questions only)
- Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (labeling issues as constitutional does not create jurisdiction)