IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20108

Summary Calendar

STEPHANIE MICHAEL, 

 Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Defendant–Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CV-2421

Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Stephanie Michael, a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps, brought claims 

under the Federal Tort Claims Act and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 against the 

Government alleging that the Department of Veterans Affairs deprived her of 

her right to benefits. The Government filed a motion to dismiss. The district 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 17, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20108 Document: 00513197238 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/17/2015
No. 15-20108

2

court granted the Government’s motion and dismissed the action for reasons 

of res judicata and sovereign immunity. We affirm.

We review the res judicata effect of a prior judgment and the existence 

of sovereign immunity de novo.1 This court has held:

The preclusive effect of a prior federal court judgment is 

controlled by federal res judicata rules. Res judicata is appropriate 

if: 1) the parties to both actions are identical (or at least in privity); 

2) the judgment in the first action is rendered by a court of 

competent jurisdiction; 3) the first action concluded with a final

judgment on the merits; and 4) the same claim or cause of action 

is involved in both suits.2 

“It has long been the rule that principles of res judicata apply to jurisdictional 

determinations—both subject matter and personal.”3 

Michael previously brought suit against the Government in the Southern 

District of Texas, which dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of 

subject-matter jurisdiction.4 Michael’s claims are the same as her prior 

lawsuit and attack the processing and outcome of her application for veterans 

benefits. Although Michael added a claim under §§ 1983 and 1985 in the 

present case, such claims are precluded by sovereign immunity.5

 

1 Oreck Direct, LLC v. Dyson, Inc., 560 F.3d 398, 401 (5th Cir. 2009); Rodriguez v. 

Transnave Inc., 8 F.3d 284, 287 (5th Cir. 1993).

2 Ellis v. Amex Life Ins. Co., 211 F.3d 935, 937 (5th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).

3 Ins. Corp. of Ir. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 n.9 (1982); 

accord Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 718 F.3d 460, 469 (5th Cir. 2013).

4 Order Adopting Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum & Recommendation, Michael v. 

United States, No. 4:12-cv-03093 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2013), ECF No. 22; Final Judgment, 

Michael v. United States, No. 4:12-cv-03093 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2013), ECF No. 23; R. at 32-

42.

5 Affiliated Prof’l Home Health Care Agency v. Shalala, 164 F.3d 282, 286 (5th Cir. 

1999) (“This Court has long recognized that suits against the United States brought under 

the civil rights statutes are barred by sovereign immunity.” (citing Unimex, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t 

of Hous. & Urban Dev., 594 F.2d 1060, 1061 (5th Cir. 1979))).

 Case: 15-20108 Document: 00513197238 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/17/2015
No. 15-20108

3

The district court dismissed the present action “with prejudice to refiling 

in the United States District Courts.” The Veterans’ Judicial Review Act

“created an exclusive review procedure by which veterans may resolve their 

disagreements with the Department of Veterans Affairs.”6 A veteran may 

appeal a benefits determination to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, and the 

Court of Veterans’ Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction to review the Board’s 

decision.7 The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction to 

review the decisions of the Court of Veterans’ Appeals.8 Because Michael 

“challenges the VA’s decision to deny [her] benefits, the district court does not 

have jurisdiction” over her complaint.9

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 

6 Zuspann v. Brown, 60 F.3d 1156, 1158 (5th Cir. 1995).

7 Id. at 1158-59.

8 Id. at 1159.

9 Id. at 1158.

 Case: 15-20108 Document: 00513197238 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/17/2015