Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00404/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00404-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ANDREW JACKSON SMITH, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 2:14cv404-WHA

) (WO) 

ERIC HOLDER, et al., )

 )

 Defendants. ) 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

On May 20, 2014 (Doc. No. 1), Plaintiff, a U.S. Army veteran and Alabama inmate

incarcerated at the Elmore Correctional Facility in Elmore, Alabama, brought this pro se

action naming as defendants Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States; President

Barack Obama; and Eric K.Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Plaintiff contends the

1

Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) has improperly reduced his veterans’ disability

payments and denied him medical care and educational benefits. Maintaining that he is

100% permanently and totally disabled, he apparently seeks a judgment directing the VA to

initiate monthly payments to him for full disability, to give him all back-pay to which he is

entitled, and to provide him with “education, medical, and all other benefits, as well.” Doc.

No. 1 at 5. He contends he has been treated inhumanely and directs his complaints about

On September 22, 2014 (Doc. No. 3), Plaintiff moved to substitute Robert McDonald 1

for Shinseki as a defendant in this action. McDonald replaced Shinseki as Secretary of

Veterans Affairs on July 30, 2014.

Case 2:14-cv-00404-WHA-WC Document 11 Filed 10/03/14 Page 1 of 6
this alleged mistreatment toward “the VA, U.S.A., and Commander-In-Chief.” Id. at 6. In

addition, he seeks unspecified actual and punitive damages. Id. at 7.

For the reasons that follow, the undersigned Magistrate Judge finds that Plaintiff’s

action should be dismissed.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction” and, as such, they possess only the

power to hear cases as authorized by the Constitution or the laws of the United States. 

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A federal court must

dismiss a case whenever it appears the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P.

12(h)(3); Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 405 F.3d 964, 975 (11th Cir . 2005); University

of South Alabama v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999) (once a

federal court determines that it is without subject matter jurisdiction, the court is powerless

to continue); Lovern v. Edwards, 190 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir. 1999). A court should inquire

into whether it has subject matter jurisdiction at the earliest possible stage in the

proceedings, and in fact, a federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter

jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking. Bochese, 405 F.3d at 975 (quoting

University of South Alabama, 168 F.3d at 410); Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v.

Kraus–Anderson Const. Co., 607 F.3d 1268, 1273 (11th Cir. 2010). 

2

Case 2:14-cv-00404-WHA-WC Document 11 Filed 10/03/14 Page 2 of 6
B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction under the VJRA

Upon review of Plaintiff’s complaint, this court cannot discern a basis for subject

matter jurisdiction over his claims. Although the factual basis for Plaintiff’s complaint is

murky, what is clear is that all his claims arise from the same basic allegation – that the VA

has wrongfully handled and underpaid his veterans’ benefits.2

Claims concerning veterans’ benefits are governed by 38 U.S.C. § 511. Section 511

is part of the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act of 1988 (“VJRA”), which creates an exclusive

review procedure for resolving veterans’ benefits disputes. Section 511 provides:

(a) The Secretary shall decide all questions of law and fact necessary to a

decision by the Secretary under a law that affects the provision or benefits by

the Secretary to veterans or the dependents or survivors of veterans. Subject

to subsection (b), the decision of the Secretary as to any such question shall

be final and conclusive and may not be reviewed by any other official or by

any court, whether by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise.

(b) The second sentence of subsection(a) does not apply to–

(1) matters subject to section 502 of this title;

(2) matters covered by sections 1975 and 1984 of this title;

Materials included with Plaintiff’s complaint indicate he served in the U.S. Army

2

Special Forces from 1982 to 1992 and that he was honorably discharged in June 1992, at

which time he was assigned a service-connected disabilities rating of “100 percent

disabling.” See Doc. No. 1-1 at 1-2. In 2000, Plaintiff was convicted in the Mobile County

Circuit Court for the offense of manslaughter and was sentenced to 30 years in prison. See

Doc. No. 1 and 4-5. He has been incarcerated since that time. Plaintiff seems to say the VA

reduced his benefits in 2001 after his incarceration. Id. at 5. Although the issue is not

directly addressed by Plaintiff in his complaint, this court notes that, under 38 U.S.C. §

5313, veterans convicted of a felony and incarcerated in a state or federal prison are subject

to a substantial reduction in their veterans’ benefits from the VA while incarcerated. See,

e.g.,Wanless v. Shinseki, 23 Vet.App. 143 (2009).

3

Case 2:14-cv-00404-WHA-WC Document 11 Filed 10/03/14 Page 3 of 6
(3) matters arising under chapter 37 of this title; and

(4) matters covered by chapter 72 of this title.

38 U.S.C. § 511.

Subsections (b)(1) through (b)(3) of § 511 are not applicable in this case because they

pertain to judicial review of rules and regulations, suits on government insurance policies,

and housing and small business loans. Chapter 72 of Title 38, listed in § 511(b)(4),

establishes the procedure for judicial review of final decisions of the Secretary of Veterans’

Affairs. “[U]nder the statutory scheme, judicial review of a particular application of the law

made by the Secretary with respect to a veteran’s entitlement to benefits may be had only by

appealing to the Board [of Veterans’ Appeals], then to the Court of Veterans’ Appeals, the

Federal Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.” Hall v. U.S. Dept. of Veterans’

Affairs, 85 F.3d 532, 534 (11th Cir. 1996). See also, e.g., Murrhee v. Principi, 364 F. Supp.

2d 782, 788 (C.D. Ill. 2005).

In short, the VJRA precludes judicial review of VA benefits decisions in federal

district courts. 38 U.S.C. § 511. Consequently, this court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s

claims that the VA has wrongfully handled and underpaid his veterans’ benefits, and those

claims fall under the purview of § 511 of the VJRA. See, e.g., Vietnam Veterans of Am. v.

Shinseki, 599 F.3d 654, 656 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (recognizing that decisions on disability

compensation fall under the VJRA); Lee v. United States, 2007 WL 564179, at *3 (M.D.

Ala. Feb. 20, 2007) (finding plaintiff’s claims fell under § 511 because they stemmed from

4

Case 2:14-cv-00404-WHA-WC Document 11 Filed 10/03/14 Page 4 of 6
the Central Alabama Veterans Health Care System’s decision to bar him from the hospital

which, in essence, was a denial of medical and hospital benefits). “Congress has attempted

to ‘close the door’ on district court jurisdiction to hear cases arising out of veterans benefits

claims by passing 38 U.S.C. § 511(a).” Murrhee, 364 F. Supp. 2d at 787. “[Section 511]

does not exclude claims which are based upon the Constitution. The statute includes all

claims, whatever their bases, as long as the claim is ‘necessary to a decision by the Secretary

under a law that affects the provision of benefits by the Secretary to veterans.’” Hicks v.

Veterans Admin., 961 F.2d 1367, 1369 (8th Cir. 1992); see also Lewis v. Randle, 2010 WL

1687970, at *2 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 9, 2010) (“[P]laintiff cannot avoid the jurisdictional bar of

§ 511 by couching his claim as a federal question.”). “This is not to say that a plaintiff

seeking review of a VA benefits decision ... has no recourse; [rather,] it is simply to say that

such recourse is not available in a district court.” Anthon v. Shinseki, 2009 WL 3739659,

at *2 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 4, 2009).3

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge

that Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction.

It is further

Plaintiff does not state whether he has complied with the requisite procedure for

3

disputing the VA’s determination regarding his veterans benefits. His complaint does not

address whether or when he actually applied administratively for additional benefits.

5

Case 2:14-cv-00404-WHA-WC Document 11 Filed 10/03/14 Page 5 of 6
ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said

Recommendation on or before October 17, 2014. Any objections filed must specifically

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the party is

objecting. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered by the District

Court. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and,

therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the

Magistrate Judge’s report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District

Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual

findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain

error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5thCir. 1982); see Stein v.

Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982); see also Bonner v. City of Prichard,

661 F.2d 1206 (11thCir. 1981) (en banc) (adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions

of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30,

1981). 

Done this 3rd day of October, 2014.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

Case 2:14-cv-00404-WHA-WC Document 11 Filed 10/03/14 Page 6 of 6