Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03758/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03758-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1402 Medical Malpractice

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VETERANS FOR COMMON SENSE and

VETERANS UNITED FOR TRUTH, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JAMES B. PEAKE, Secretary of

Veterans Affairs, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-07-3758 SC

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO

DISMISS WILLIAM P.

GREENE AND MICHAEL

MUKASEY

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to

Dismiss William P. Greene and Michael Mukasey ("Motion"). See

Docket No. 95. Plaintiffs submitted an Opposition and Defendants

filed a Reply. See Docket Nos. 119, 140. With leave from the

Court, both parties then submitted supplemental briefing. See

Docket Nos. 167, 168. After reviewing the parties' submissions,

the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss William P. Greene

and Michael Mukasey.

II. BACKGROUND

The facts of the case are presented in the Court's January

10, 2007, Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Docket No.

93. The parties' familiarity with the facts is therefore assumed

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC Document 173 Filed 03/13/08 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 -2-

and only those relevant to this Motion are discussed.

Plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed Defendant Mukasey. See

Opp'n at 1. Michael Mukasey is therefore DISMISSED.

William P. Greene is the Chief Judge of the United States

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ("CAVC"). Plaintiffs seek

declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendant Greene in his

position as the administrator of the CAVC. The Complaint states

that Greene is named "in his official capacity as the person

responsible for the administration and management of CAVC," and

"is not named in his judicial capacity." Compl. ¶ 47. Plaintiffs

allege that Greene's management and administration of the CAVC has

resulted in substantial delays in the appellate process for

veterans appealing health care claim denials or adverse decisions. 

These delays, according to Plaintiffs, constitute violations of

the veterans' due process rights.

III. DISCUSSION

To begin, the Court notes that Plaintiffs have failed to

present any factual allegations of unconstitutional acts by

Greene. Plaintiffs' basic argument is that because there is a

backlog of cases pending before the CAVC, and because this backlog

is creating significant delays in the claims process for veterans

seeking healthcare, Greene's administration and management of the

CAVC is somehow unconstitutional. See Opp'n at 4 (stating "the

CAVC's management results in unconstitutional delays violating due

process"). Plaintiffs themselves, however, recognize that "[t]he

workload of the CAVC makes it impossible for the court to fairly

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC Document 173 Filed 03/13/08 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 -3-

analyze and decide cases before it." Compl. ¶ 165. Thus, by

Plaintiffs' own admission, it is the workload that creates the

alleged due process violations. This interpretation is only

bolstered by the absence in Plaintiffs' Complaint of any factual

allegations concerning specific actions that Greene is now taking

that are allegedly unconstitutional, or, at the very least, that

result in further delays beyond those created by the overwhelming

workload.

Plaintiffs' concession that the workload of the CAVC creates

the substantial delays is all the more striking in light of

Plaintiffs' recent statement that "Plaintiffs seek declaratory and

injunctive relief directing Green to manage the CAVC and its

resources in a manner that does not result in unconstitutional

delays to veterans." Pls.' Supp. Br. at 2-3. It is highly

doubtful to this Court, and, judging from Plaintiffs' earlier

briefs, to Plaintiffs as well, that any order directing Greene to

manage his docket in a different fashion could achieve anything

close to the type of relief Plaintiffs seek.

Although worth noting, the above discussion is secondary to

the Court's primary holding, which is that the Court lacks

jurisdiction over Greene and the CAVC. The Administrative

Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq., provides a valid

waiver of sovereign immunity for actions against federal agencies. 

See also Gallo Cattle Co. v. Dep't of Agric., 159 F.3d 1194, (9th

Cir. 1998) (stating that the APA "does provide a waiver of

sovereign immunity in suits seeking judicial review of a federal

agency action under [28 U.S.C.] § 1331"). The APA, however, does

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC Document 173 Filed 03/13/08 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 -4-

not waive sovereign immunity against the "courts of the United

States." 5 U.S.C. § 551(1)(B). 

The Court finds that although the CAVC is an Article I court,

it is nonetheless a "court of the United States," id., not an

agency, and therefore is protected by sovereign immunity against

suit. The relevant caselaw supports this finding. See Bates v.

Nicholson, 398 F.3d 1355, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (stating that the

CAVC provides "independent judicial review of the Board's final

decisions"); Jackson v. Principi, 265 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir.

2001) (holding the CAVC is "a judicial body independent of the

[VA] secretary," while the BVA is "an agent of the Secretary");

Forshey v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1335, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (stating

the CAVC "is a court and depends upon the adversarial parties to

identify the issues for review"); Abbs v. Principi, 237 F.3d 1342,

1347-49 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Thus, the APA does not provide a valid

waiver of sovereign immunity for Greene or the CAVC.

In the alternative, Plaintiffs urge that such a waiver is not

necessary because of an exception that permits suits against

federal officers under certain circumstances. In Larson v.

Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682 (1949), the

Supreme Court stated that "suits for specific relief against

officers of the sovereign which are not suits against the

sovereign [may be permissible]. If the officer purports to act as

an individual and not as an official, a suit directed against that

action is not a suit against the sovereign." Id. at 689. This

exception has been interpreted to permit suits against "action by

officers beyond their statutory powers and . . . even though

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC Document 173 Filed 03/13/08 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 -5-

within the scope of their authority, the powers themselves or the

manner in which they are exercised are constitutionally void." 

Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609, 621-22 (1963); see also De Lao v.

Califano, 560 F.2d 1384, 1391 (9th Cir. 1977) (holding that a suit

against a government official may be brought notwithstanding the

doctrine of sovereign immunity if the official's actions were

ultra vires or were performed pursuant to an unconstitutional

statute or in an unconstitutional manner).

Plaintiffs have sued Greene in his "official capacity." 

Compl. § 47. This by itself may be enough to remove any

connection to the Larson exception. See Balser v. Dep't of

Justice, Office of U.S. Trustee, 327 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir. 2003)

(stating in "sovereign immunity analysis, any lawsuit against . .

. an officer of the United States in his or her official capacity

is considered an action against the United States"). And if it is

not, Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to allege that Greene is acting

outside the scope of any statutory authority or pursuant to an

unconstitutional statute. See S. Delta Water Agency v. U.S. Dept.

of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 767 F.2d 531, 536 (9th Cir.

1985) (stating "[f]ederal agencies and instrumentalities, as well

as federal employees acting in their official capacities within

their authority, are similarly immune from suit").

Thus, the only way the Larson exception might apply is if

Plaintiffs had alleged that Defendant Greene was acting

unconstitutionally. As noted above, however, Plaintiffs have

failed to allege any constitutional violations against Defendant

Greene, and thus the Larson exception to sovereign immunity does

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC Document 173 Filed 03/13/08 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 -6-

not apply. 

As the Court lacks jurisdiction over Defendant Greene,

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Amendment will not cure

this defect and Plaintiffs' request to amend their Complaint is

therefore DENIED.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the above-stated reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants'

Motion to Dismiss William P. Greene and Michael Mukasey.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2008

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC Document 173 Filed 03/13/08 Page 6 of 6