Case: 21-1710 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 07/28/2021
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MARCUS SEBASTIAN PAYNE,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2021-1710
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 20-6321, Judge Amanda L. Mere-
dith.
______________________
Decided: July 28, 2021
______________________
MARCUS SEBASTIAN PAYNE, Powder Springs, GA, pro
se.
GALINA I. FOMENKOVA, Commerical Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, MARTIN F. HOCKEY,
JR.
______________________
Case: 21-1710 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 07/28/2021
2 PAYNE v. MCDONOUGH
Before MOORE, Chief Judge, REYNA and HUGHES, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Marcus Sebastian Payne appeals an order of the
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims dis-
missing Mr. Payne’s petition for a writ of mandamus as
moot. S.A. 2–4. Because we lack jurisdiction over this ap-
peal, we dismiss.
I
Mr. Payne served in the United States Navy from Sep-
tember 1988 to September 1990. Payne v. McDonald, 587
F. App’x 649, 649 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (non-precedential). He
suffered from multiple service-connected disabilities. Id.
To compensate Mr. Payne for those disabilities, the De-
partment of Veterans Affairs (VA) created an individual-
ized rehabilitation plan, which included a nonpaid work
experience with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Id. at
650. Mr. Payne requested to complete that work experi-
ence from home after suffering a foot injury. In response,
the IRS noted that the terms of Mr. Payne’s work experi-
ence required him to complete that experience in the office.
Based on those terms, the IRS denied Mr. Payne’s work-
from-home request. And because Mr. Payne could not com-
ply with the terms of his work experience, that arrange-
ment was discontinued. Id. Mr. Payne appealed to the VA,
which sustained the IRS’s decision in a 2014 Statement of
the Case. Mr. Payne then filed a motion with the VA seek-
ing a revision of that decision based on clear and unmistak-
able error.
On August 31, 2020, Mr. Payne petitioned the Veter-
ans Court for a writ of mandamus to compel a decision on
his clear and unmistakable error claim. On December 8,
2020, the VA regional office issued its decision denying that
claim. In its response to Mr. Payne’s mandamus petition,
Case: 21-1710 Document: 17 Page: 3 Filed: 07/28/2021
PAYNE v. MCDONOUGH 3
the VA informed the Veterans Court that it had just issued
and mailed a decision on Mr. Payne’s motion. Thus, the
Veterans Court dismissed Mr. Payne’s petition as moot.
Mr. Payne appeals.
II
We have “jurisdiction to review the [Veterans Court]’s
decision whether to grant a mandamus petition that raises
a non-frivolous legal question.” Beasley v. Shinseki,
709
F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (emphasis added). With-
out “review[ing] the factual merits of the veteran’s claim,”
we “may review whether the petitioner has satisfied the le-
gal standard for issuing the writ” Id.; see also
38 U.S.C.
§ 7292(a) (defining the scope of our jurisdiction over ap-
peals from the Veterans Court).
Mr. Payne fails to raise any non-frivolous challenge to
the Veterans Court’s dismissal of his mandamus petition.
At no point does Mr. Payne claim the Veterans Court com-
mitted reversible error in dismissing his mandamus peti-
tion as moot. Nor have we identified any reversible error
in the Veterans Court’s decision. Rather than challenging
the Veterans Court’s dismissal, Mr. Payne challenges the
VA’s decision denying his motion on the merits. Appel-
lant’s Informal Br. at 1–3; Appellant’s Informal Reply Br.
at 1–11. But that decision is not before us in this appeal.
“[W]e are a court of review, not of first view.” Cutter v. Wil-
kinson,
544 U.S. 709, 719 (2005) (declining to decide issue
not addressed in the court of appeals). To be ripe for re-
view, Mr. Payne’s merits arguments must pass through the
ordinary channels of lower-tribunal review. Accordingly,
we dismiss.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
