Case: 22-1503 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 06/09/2022
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
STEVEN L. LONDON,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2022-1503
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 19-5784, Judge Michael P. Allen.
______________________
Decided: June 9, 2022
______________________
STEVEN LONDON, Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria, pro se.
AUGUSTUS JEFFREY GOLDEN, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY,
LOREN MISHA PREHEIM.
______________________
Case: 22-1503 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 06/09/2022
2 LONDON v. MCDONOUGH
Before MOORE, Chief Judge, DYK and CHEN, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Steven L. London appeals a decision of the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims denying his
petition for a writ of mandamus. Because Mr. London ob-
tained the relief sought in his mandamus petition, we dis-
miss.
BACKGROUND
On July 12, 2013, Mr. London filed multiple disability
claims with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
J.A. 47. The VA granted some of his claims and denied the
rest. Id.
On March 23, 2017, Mr. London began the appeal pro-
cess by submitting a notice of disagreement. J.A. 229. Al-
most a year later, the VA certified Mr. London’s appeal to
the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. J.A. 189. More than a year
after that, the Board had not held a hearing in Mr. Lon-
don’s case. J.A. 274 ¶ 3.
Alleging unreasonable delay, Mr. London petitioned
the Veterans Court for a writ of mandamus compelling the
Board to “render full adjudication.” J.A. 278. Based on the
Secretary’s representation that the VA was “in the process
of providing that relief,” the Veterans Court denied the pe-
tition. J.A. 17–18. Mr. London appealed.
We vacated and remanded with instructions for the
Veterans Court to apply the correct legal standard in de-
ciding whether to grant Mr. London’s mandamus petition.
London v. McDonough, 840 F. App’x 596, 597 (Fed. Cir.
2021) (non-precedential). On remand, the Veterans Court
again denied the petition. London v. McDonough, No. 19-
5784, 2021 WL 4227879, at *1 (Vet. App. Sept. 17, 2021).
Again, Mr. London appealed.
Case: 22-1503 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 06/09/2022
LONDON v. MCDONOUGH 3
On October 18, 2021, the Board provided the relief that
Mr. London sought in his mandamus petition. That is, it
“made a decision on [his] appeal.” J.A. 64. The Board af-
firmed the VA’s denial of Mr. London’s claims. J.A. 66–67.
DISCUSSION
“A case becomes moot—and therefore no longer a ‘Case’
or ‘Controversy’ for purposes of Article III [of the Constitu-
tion]—when the issues presented are no longer live.” Al-
ready, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91 (2013) (cleaned
up). If no court is capable of granting the relief a petitioner
seeks, no live controversy remains. Kingdomware Techs.,
Inc. v. United States, 579 U.S. 162, 169 (2016).
Here, there is no live controversy because the Veterans
Court cannot order the Board to do what it has already
done: adjudicate Mr. London’s appeal. Mr. London does not
dispute that the Board fully resolved his appeal in its Oc-
tober 18, 2021 decision. He instead argues only that the
Board’s decision “relied upon erroneous evidence.” Appel-
lant’s Reply Br. 3. This argument is beyond the scope of
Mr. London’s mandamus petition, as it challenges the mer-
its of the Board’s decision. The appropriate avenue for Mr.
London’s merits-based argument is direct appeal. Because
the Board provided the relief sought and no live contro-
versy remains, we dismiss Mr. London’s appeal as moot.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
London v. McDonough
Combined Opinion