I’ve had Vets write me and ask how to pry loose a copy of their c-file after their requests go unanswered for a year or two. Mr. Clifford A. Eastman, through his able rainmaker, Mr. Mark Lippman, has discovered the fifty dollar ticket to Nirvana. For the uninitiated, it costs $50 to file at the CAVC. Shocked? Yep. You have to buy justice when you get to these exalted heights unless you can prove indigence.
Members Leigh and Paul have been pestering the Baltimore VARO for nigh on a year plus 6 with no results. Her attorney should read this. Hell, I’ll throw in the fifty dollars just to irritate Eric. If I passed the hat, I’m betting we could get a princely sum to keep on tap for these purposes. But, having no urge to get on the wrong side of the IRS about a 501(c) 3 filing, I’m going to just let her law dog bite them in the ass.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS
CLIFFORD A. EASTMAN, PETITIONER,
ERIC K. SHINSEKI,
SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, RESPONDENT.
Before HAGEL, Judge.
O R D E R
Note: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a),
this action may not be cited as precedent.
On April 25, 2013, Clifford A. Eastman, through counsel, filed a petition for extraordinary
relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus. Mr. Eastman requested that the Court order the Oakland, California, VA regional office to provide him a copy of his claims file. On May 23, 2013, the Court ordered the Secretary to respond to Mr. Eastman’s petition. On June 21, 2013, the Secretary filed his response, indicating that on May 24, 2013, VA sent a copy of Mr. Eastman’s claims file to his counsel, Mr. Mark Lippman. The Secretary argues that the Court should dismiss Mr. Eastman’s petition as moot.
This Court adheres to the case-or-controversy jurisdictional restraints provided for in Article III of the U.S. Constitution. See Mokal v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 12, 13-15 (1990). When the relief requested in a petition has been obtained, the appropriate course of action is for the Court to dismiss the petition as moot. See Thomas v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 269, 270-71 (1996) (per curiam order).
Because Mr. Eastman has obtained the relief sought in his petition, a copy of his claims file, the Court will dismiss his petition as moot.
Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that Mr. Eastman’s petition for writ of mandamus is DISMISSED as moot
DATED: July 5, 2013 BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lawrence B. Hagel
LAWRENCE B. HAGEL
Mark R. Lippman, Esq.
VA General Counsel (027)