Opinion ID: 186750
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the Plaintiffs Can Prove Denial of Access.

Text: 57 We turn now to whether the plaintiffs can show they have been, and are currently being, denied meaningful access to the courts. 58
59 As mentioned, to state a backward-looking denial-of-access claim, plaintiffs must show, among other things, that they have been completely foreclosed from meaningfully pursuing their underlying claims. Plaintiffs' complaint looks backward to just one group of underlying claims: the claims of six of the nine plaintiffs that were rejected by the VA. Because these underlying claims have not been completely foreclosed, however, plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for denial of access. 11 60 Plaintiffs cannot show, consistent with the allegations of the their complaint, that no avenue exists through which they can meaningfully pursue their underlying benefits claims. Consequently, they cannot show that the relief they seek is not available in a suit that may yet be brought, Harbury III, 536 U.S. at 415, 122 S.Ct. 2179, or in a presently existing claim, id. at 416, 122 S.Ct. 2179. The six plaintiffs bringing backward-looking claims cannot make this showing because the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and VA regulations that allow for the reopening of prior benefits proceedings, appear to provide them, in tandem, precisely what they claim they have been denied. If the defendants are covering up records of medical tests that describe the amount of radiation to which these veterans were exposed, FOIA provides a potential remedy. FOIA provides that, subject to certain exceptions, 12 each agency, upon any request for records which (i) reasonably describes such records and (ii) is made in accordance with published rules stating the time, place, fees (if any), and procedures to be followed, shall make the records promptly available to any person. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A). If the agency does not make these records available, a party can repair to the district court to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant. Id. § 552(a)(4)(B). 61 Once plaintiffs obtain the records, VA regulations allow them to reopen a finally adjudicated claim by submitting new and material evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). Under the regulations, new evidence is existing evidence not previously submitted to agency decisionmakers and material evidence is existing evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. Id. If these covered-up documents are what plaintiffs say they are, this provision would undoubtedly allow plaintiffs to reopen their earlier claims. Once the claims are reopened, if the new and material evidence supports a finding that the plaintiffs' illnesses are service-connected, benefits will be awarded retroactive to the date of original filing. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c). Plaintiffs therefore will be in the same position they would have been in had there been no cover-up at all. See Harbury III, 536 U.S. at 415, 122 S.Ct. 2179 (There is, after all, no point in spending time and money to establish the facts constituting denial of access when a plaintiff would end up just as well off after litigating a simpler case without the denial-of-access element.). 62 None of the plaintiffs in this case have suggested that this avenue for relief is foreclosed. Plaintiffs did file a FOIA request with the VA, DoD, and other Government agencies, but they have not challenged in any court these agencies' failure or refusal to provide the requested documents. Given plaintiffs' failure to exhaust FOIA remedies and seek a reopening of their benefits' claims, plaintiffs cannot show that their underlying claims have been completely foreclosed. Harbury I, 233 F.3d at 609. That failure is fatal to their backward-looking claims. 63 As a fallback, at oral argument plaintiffs' counsel suggested that the complaint also looks backward to a second category of underlying claims: claims for veterans benefits that the plaintiffs did not file because the defendants' cover-up kept them from knowing that they had been subjected to dangerous levels of radiation while in military service. We have reviewed the complaint, however, and its four counts do not come close to identifying such a category of underlying claims. See Harbury III, 536 U.S. at 416, 122 S.Ct. 2179 (requiring that the predicate claim be described well enough to apply the `nonfrivolous' test and to show that the `arguable' nature of the underlying claim is more than hope). The first count, entitled Denial Of Access to Courts-Systemic Official Action to Frustrate Plaintiffs' Preparing, Filing, and Prosecuting Current Claims for Veterans Benefits, looks forward to claims not yet closed. J.A. 50 (emphasis added). The second, entitled Denial Of Access to Courts-Systemic Official Action to Cause the Loss or Inadequate Settlement of Past Claims for Veterans Benefits, looks backward to claims already filed and closed. J.A. 53 (emphasis added). The last two—Conspiracy to Deny Plaintiffs' Constitutional Rights and Failure to Act to Prevent Denial of Plaintiffs' Constitutional Rights—are dependant on the first two. 64 The only statement in the complaint which even arguably looks backward to underlying claims that the plaintiffs did not file is the following confusing statement: Plaintiffs have suffered a permanent loss of financial compensation and opportunities for medical benefits . . . because VA regulations prohibit awarding Plaintiffs financial and medical benefits lost because of the denials of past benefit claims and permanently lost opportunities to file benefits claims even if those claims are filed or reopened in the future. J.A. 54. But this statement tells us nothing about which, if any, of the named plaintiffs permanently lost specific claims in this way, nor does it tell us anything about the nature of these supposedly permanently lost claims—certainly not enough to give the defendants, let alone the Court, fair notice of these claims or to allow us to decide if these claims are nonfrivolous. See Harbury III, 536 U.S. at 416, 122 S.Ct. 2179. 65
66 As noted, plaintiffs also appear to bring forward-looking denial-of-access claims, seeking release of the covered-up documents so that they can meaningfully pursue a separate claim for relief once the frustrating condition has been removed. Harbury III, 536 U.S. at 413, 122 S.Ct. 2179. But these claims fail for the same reason as the backward-looking claims. Because plaintiffs can still seek, through FOIA, the documents they believe they need to meaningfully pursue their benefits claims, they cannot show that their opportunity to meaningfully litigate has been completely foreclosed, Harbury I, 233 F.3d at 609, or that the defendants' actions presently den[ied] [the plaintiffs] an opportunity to litigate, Harbury III, 536 U.S. at 413, 122 S.Ct. 2179. That failing is fatal to their forward-looking claims.