In Re JACQUELINE M. MCBRIDE v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248 1992 . Here, the petition sat- isfies the requirements for…

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re JACQUELINE M. MCBRIDE,
Petitioner
______________________
2026-139
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 23-1148,
Judge Amanda L. Meredith, Judge Joseph L. Toth, and
Judge Grant Jaquith.
______________________
ON PETITION AND MOTION
______________________
Before TARANTO , H UGHES , and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
PER C URIAM.
O R D E R
Jacqueline M. McBride petitioned the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims alleging an unlawful
discontinuation of an award for a total disability rating
based on individual unemployability (“TDIU”) and failure
to adjudicate a higher-level review regarding entitlement
to TDIU. A single judge denied the petition. On April 15,
2026, a panel of judges denied reconsideration but made
the single-judge decision a decision of the panel. On April
21, 2026, Ms. McBride filed at this court an “Emergency
Case: 26-139 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 05/22/2026

-- 1 of 4 --

IN RE MCBRIDE 2
Writ of Mandamus” seeking, inter alia, an “emergency or-
der staying” the April 15, 2026 decision.1
Although Ms. McBride’s petition is styled as a request
for mandamus relief, we have discretion to consider
whether her filing constitutes a notice of appeal. See Smith
v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992). Here, the petition sat-
isfies the requirements for a notice of appeal under Rule 3
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and would be
timely if treated as such. We therefore treat the petition
as a direct appeal and deny mandamus. See Mallard v.
U.S. Dist. Ct. for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989)
(holding that a party seeking a writ must show it has no
other adequate means to obtain relief).
Our determination whether to grant interim relief is
governed by four factors: (1) whether the movant has made
a strong showing of a likelihood of success on the merits;
(2) whether the movant will be irreparably injured absent
the requested relief; (3) whether issuance of the requested
relief will substantially injure the other parties interested
in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.
See Ohio v. Env’t Prot. Agency, 603 U.S. 279, 291 (2024)
(citing Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009)); Roman
Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. 14, 16
(2020). Based on the papers submitted, and without prej-
udicing the ultimate disposition of this case by a merits
panel, we conclude that Ms. McBride has not shown that
such relief is warranted here.
1 On April 27, 2026, the court received a “Corrected
Emergency Writ of Mandamus,” ECF No. 6, which appears
intended to replace ECF No. 2. The court therefore will
take no action on ECF No. 2, which the court had sealed as
a courtesy to Ms. McBride while we considered her filing.
ECF No. 2 will remain sealed.
Case: 26-139 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 05/22/2026

-- 2 of 4 --

IN RE MCBRIDE 3
Lastly, Ms. McBride requests the court seal exhibits di-
rected to letters of medical professionals describing her
condition(s).2 Federal Circuit Rules 25.1(e) and 30(g) gen-
erally require a party filing an appendix that references
confidential information to file both a confidential version
that is seen only by the parties and the court, and a non-
confidential version that redacts the confidential infor-
mation. As a courtesy, the court will seal the documents
identified in footnote 2 of this order, but to the extent Ms.
McBride also submits those letters in connection with
briefing on her appeal (or any other material that merits
confidentiality), Ms. McBride is directed to comply with
Rules 25.1 and 30 regarding confidential and non-confiden-
tial versions of her filings.
Accordingly,
IT IS O RDERED THAT:
(1) The petition is denied. ECF No. 6 is treated as a
timely notice of appeal in this matter. The Clerk of Court
shall transfer this matter to the court’s normal appeals
docket, and Ms. McBride’s opening brief is due within 60
days from the date of docketing of that appeal.
(2) The motion for a stay and/or injunction pending ap-
peal is denied.
2 Specifically, the court understands the sealing re-
quest to apply to ECF No. 6 at 415, 421–23, 866; 1020, and
1232–35.
Case: 26-139 Document: 8 Page: 3 Filed: 05/22/2026

-- 3 of 4 --

IN RE MCBRIDE 4
(3) The motion to seal is granted only to the extent pro-
vided in this order.
May 22, 2026
Date
FOR THE C OURT
Case: 26-139 Document: 8 Page: 4 Filed: 05/22/2026

-- 4 of 4 --