Source: http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19580422_0040141.C07.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-04-22 18:34:13
Document Index: 399283349

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 705', '§ 11', '§ 705', '§ 11', '§ 705', '§ 11', '§ 2282']

BERNARD KLEIN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
V. O. LEE, ADJUDICATION OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, OFFICIAL AGENT FOR HONORABLE H. V. HIGLEY, ADMINISTRATOR, UNITED STATES VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, WASHINGTON, D.C., DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
Plaintiff commenced action in the District Court specifying that the summons should be served on "V. O. Lee, Adjudication Officer, Regional Office, Chicago, Illinois, Official Agent for Honorable H. V. Higley, Administrator, United States Veterans Administration, Washington, D.C." H. V. Higley was, therefore, not a party and the motion of the plaintiff to substitute Sumner G. Whittier, the present administrator, for Higley filed in this court on February 6, 1958 is not in order and must be denied.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the following grounds: 1) that the decisions of the Administrator of the Veterans' Administration such as involved in the present case are by law final and non-reviewable by the Courts; 2) that plaintiff had not exhausted his administrative remedies; 3) the administrator was a necessary party defendant and the District Court in Illinois was without jurisdiction to grant relief; 4) that defendant Lee was not a proper party defendant. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff filed an application for the convening of a three-judge court based upon his contention that Title 38 U.S.C.A. Sec. 705*fn1 was unconstitutional.
Consistent with its attitude expressed in § 705, U.S.C.A. 38, Congress, in 1940, showed its continued determination to withhold from the jurisdiction of the courts every final decision of the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs by enacting § 11a-2 of U.S.C.A. Title 38 which reads as follows: "Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, except as provided in sections 445 and 817 of this title (relating to insurance), the decisions of the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs on any question of law or fact concerning a claim for benefits or payments under any Act administered by the Veterans' Administration shall be final and conclusive and no other official or any court of the United States shall have power or jurisdiction to review any such decisions."
There are several reasons why the District Court was correct in granting the motion to dismiss. However, it is sufficient for our decision that we refer only to the provisions of Title 38 U.S.C.A. § 705 and 38 U.S.C.A. § 11a-2.
District Courts of the United States are courts of limited jurisdiction. They have such jurisdiction as Congress may have conferred upon them. Lockerty v. Phillips, 319 U.S. 182, 63 S. Ct. 1019, 87 L. Ed. 1339. Congress has the power to take away, even as to pending cases, jurisdiction that it had theretofore conferred. Hallowell v. Commons, 239 U.S. 506, 36 S. Ct. 202, 60 L. Ed. 409.
Plaintiff insists, however, that when he made the claim that 38 U.S.C.A. § 705 and 38 U.S.C.A. § 11a-2 were unconstitutional, he was entitled, under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2282, to have a three-judge court convened.
It is well settled that a substantial constitutional question must be presented before a three-judge court will be convened. Where it is clear as in the instant case, that the claim of unconstitutionality is entirely without merit, it is within the power of a single judge to dismiss the application. "The lack of substantiality in a federal question may appear either because it is obviously without merit or because its unsoundness so clearly results from the previous decisions of this court as to ...