In re SOLLA

Case: 26-150 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 09/22/2026

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

______________________

In Re ADAM A. SOLLA,

Petitioner ______________________ 2026-150 ______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 26-3381, Judge Coral Wong Pietsch.

______________________ ON PETITION ______________________

Before DYK, MAYER, and STARK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.

ORDER

On July 31, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, in a single judge order, dismissed-in- part and denied-in-part Adam A. Solla’s petition for a writ of mandamus. On the same day, he filed a motion with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for reconsideration or, alternatively, for a panel decision. Mr. Solla then peti- tioned this court for a writ of mandamus on August 6, 2026, challenging the single-judge decision and, among other things, requesting the court “hold[] this petition in abey- ance until the Veterans Court resolves the pending” Case: 26-150 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 09/22/2026 2 IN RE SOLLA motion. Pet. at 3. On August 27, 2026, the Court of Ap- peals for Veterans Claims ordered that the motion for re- consideration was denied by the single judge, the motion for panel decision was granted, and the single-judge order remained the decision of that court.

A party seeking a writ of mandamus bears the burden of demonstrating to the court that he has no adequate al- ternative means to obtain the desired relief and that right to relief is clear and indisputable. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989). Mr. Solla has failed to meet those requirements at least be- cause he can directly appeal a final decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to this court. See In re Pollitz, 206 U.S. 323, 331 (1907) (“[M]andamus cannot . . . be used to perform the office of an appeal . . . .”).

Because Mr. Solla’s submission meets the require- ments of Rule 3(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Pro- cedure and was received within the time permitted to appeal,1 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); Fed. Cir. R. 1(a)(1)(D). Once received by that clerk, the clerk will transmit the no- tice of appeal back to this court for docketing.

In the meantime, this court will transfer this matter to the court’s normal appeals docket.

Accordingly, 1 The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has not yet entered judgment. However, a “notice of appeal filed after the court announces a decision . . . but before the en- try of the judgment . . . is treated as filed on the date of and after the entry.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(2).

Case: 26-150 Document: 10 Page: 3 Filed: 09/22/2026 IN RE SOLLA 3

IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The petition and any pending motions are denied. This court’s Clerk of Court shall transmit ECF No. 2 to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to be docketed as a notice of appeal.

(2) The Clerk of Court shall transfer this matter to the court’s normal appeals docket, in which he will docket the notice of appeal once returned by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

FOR THE COURT September 22, 2026

Date