Case: 24-101 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 11/07/2023

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: BURL ANDERSON HOWELL, Petitioner ______________________

2024-101 ______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 23-1119, Judge Joseph L. Falvey, Jr. ______________________

ON PETITION AND MOTION ______________________

PER CURIAM. ORDER On October 2, 2023, Burl Anderson Howell filed this petition for a writ of mandamus “for review of the interloc- utory Order of August 4, 2023 in the [United States] Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.” Pet. at 1. Mr. Howell also moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Mr. Howell filed an appeal with the Veterans Court re- garding an earlier Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision. On July 18, 2023, a single judge issued a decision dismissing the appeal. Mr. Howell’s motion for single judge reconsid- eration was denied on August 4, 2023. And, after granting Case: 24-101 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 11/07/2023

2 IN RE: HOWELL

reconsideration, a panel of the court affirmed the single- judge order on October 11, 2023. As a threshold matter, we must consider whether Mr. Howell has an alternative adequate means by which to challenge the decision of the Veterans Court. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989) (holding that a party seeking a writ bears the bur- den of proving that it has no other means of attaining the relief, such as by appeal); Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Hol- land, 346 U.S. 379, 383 (1953) (stating “whatever may be done without the writ may not be done with it”). To appeal a judgment of the Veterans Court as a mat- ter of right, a party must file a timely notice of appeal. To satisfy that requirement, the notice must set forth (1) the party taking the appeal, (2) the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed, and (3) the name of the court to which the appeal is taken. Fed. R. App. P. 3(c); see Fed. Cir. R. 1(a)(1)(D). Mr. Howell’s petition meets these re- quirements. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 181–82 (1962). And if treated as a notice, instead of a mandamus petition, his appeal would now be deemed timely. 38 U.S.C. § 7292; 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); FirsTier Mortg. Co. v. Invs. Mortg. Ins. Co., 498 U.S. 269, 272–73 (1991). Because we conclude Mr. Howell’s submission allows him to pursue his challenge to the Veterans Court’s judg- ment on direct appeal, it follows that mandamus relief is not appropriate, since such relief is available only when a party has no other adequate means to obtain relief. We therefore deny the petition and forward the submission to the Veterans Court to be docketed as a notice of appeal. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The petition is denied because the matter is treated as a timely notice of appeal. The Clerk of Court shall for- ward ECF No. 2 to the United States Court of Appeals for Case: 24-101 Document: 8 Page: 3 Filed: 11/07/2023

IN RE: HOWELL 3

Veterans Claims for docketing as a notice of appeal, filed on October 2, 2023. (2) The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. No fee is required for Mr. Howell’s new appeal. FOR THE COURT

November 7, 2023 Date