Winsett v. Principi

Veterans Claims

Winsett v. Principi

15 Vet. App. 403, 2002 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 32, 2002 WL 59125

CourtUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

DecidedJanuary 17, 2002

Docket01-0726

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 15 Vet. App. 403 (Winsett v. Principi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Winsett v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 403, 2002 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 32, 2002 WL 59125 (Cal. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

On June 1, 2001, in a single-judge order, the Court denied the pro se petitioner’s petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus. The order also directed the Clerk of the Court to reject any future petitions for extraordinary relief submitted by the petitioner without payment of the filing fee. In an August 7, 2001, per curiam order, the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the June 1, 2001, order was denied, and a panel of the Court denied the petitioner’s motion for a panel decision. On August 16, 17, and 31, 2001, the petitioner filed a series of motions for, inter alia, a full Court decision and amendment of that part of the June 1, 2001, single-judge order that directed the Clerk of the Court to reject any future petitions for extraordinary relief filed by her without payment of the filing fee. On September 27, 2001, the Court denied the motion for a full Court decision.

On October 4, 2001, the petitioner filed motions: (1) to amend the June 1, 2001, single-judge order; (2) to quash the full Court’s September 27, 2001, order; (3) to reconsider her petition; and (4) to stay the case pending a Department of Veterans Affairs regional office’s action on certain of her claims pending before it.

Motions for a full Court decision are not favored. Ordinarily they will not be granted unless such action is necessary *404 to secure or maintain uniformity of the Court’s decisions or to resolve a question of exceptional importance. It is not sufficient merely to allege that one of the two foregoing criteria are met; it must be demonstrated. The petitioner has shown neither.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED by the single judge that the motion to amend the Court’s June 1, 2001, order is denied. It is further

ORDERED by the full Court that the motion to quash the Court’s September 27, 2001, order, the motion for reconsideration, and the motion to stay proceedings are each denied. In light of the circumstances set forth in the Court’s June 1, 2001, order and this order, the Clerk of the Court is directed to return to the petitioner all future pleadings filed by her in this matter. See generally In re Matter of Packer Ave. Assoc., 884 F.2d 745, 747-49 (3d Cir.1989); Cook v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co., 775 F.2d 1030 (9th Cir.1985); In Re Hartford Textile Corp., 613 F.2d 388 (2d Cir.1979); Kinnear-Weed Corp. v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 441 F.2d 631 (5th Cir.1971).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

On June 1, 2001, in a single-judge order, the Court denied the pro se petitioner’s petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus. The order also directed the Clerk of the Court to reject any future petitions for extraordinary relief submitted by the petitioner without payment of the filing fee. In an August 7, 2001, per curiam order, the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the June 1, 2001, order was denied, and a panel of the Court denied the petitioner’s motion for a panel decision. On August 16, 17, and 31, 2001, the petitioner filed a series of motions for, inter alia, a full Court decision and amendment of that part of the June 1, 2001, single-judge order that directed the Clerk of the Court to reject any future petitions for extraordinary relief filed by her without payment of the filing fee. On September 27, 2001, the Court denied the motion for a full Court decision.

On October 4, 2001, the petitioner filed motions: (1) to amend the June 1, 2001, single-judge order; (2) to quash the full Court’s September 27, 2001, order; (3) to reconsider her petition; and (4) to stay the case pending a Department of Veterans Affairs regional office’s action on certain of her claims pending before it.

Motions for a full Court decision are not favored. Ordinarily they will not be granted unless such action is necessary *404 to secure or maintain uniformity of the Court’s decisions or to resolve a question of exceptional importance. It is not sufficient merely to allege that one of the two foregoing criteria are met; it must be demonstrated. The petitioner has shown neither.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED by the single judge that the motion to amend the Court’s June 1, 2001, order is denied. It is further

ORDERED by the full Court that the motion to quash the Court’s September 27, 2001, order, the motion for reconsideration, and the motion to stay proceedings are each denied. In light of the circumstances set forth in the Court’s June 1, 2001, order and this order, the Clerk of the Court is directed to return to the petitioner all future pleadings filed by her in this matter. See generally In re Matter of Packer Ave. Assoc., 884 F.2d 745, 747-49 (3d Cir.1989); Cook v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co., 775 F.2d 1030 (9th Cir.1985); In Re Hartford Textile Corp., 613 F.2d 388 (2d Cir.1979); Kinnear-Weed Corp. v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 441 F.2d 631 (5th Cir.1971).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Vet. App. 403, 2002 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 32, 2002 WL 59125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winsett-v-principi-cavc-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack