Court Opinion

ID: 2964509
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:26:42.652991+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:56.521419
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1805

                                  ROBERT E. BRADLEY,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                        UNITED STATES VETERANS ADMINISTRATION,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Robert E. Bradley on brief pro se.
            _________________
            Jay P. McCloskey,  United States  Attorney, David  R. Collins  and
            ________________                            _________________
        Margaret D.  McGaughey, Assistant  United States Attorneys,  on Motion
        ______________________
        for Summary Affirmance for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                   January 22, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.    Pro  se  plaintiff  Robert  Bradley,  an
                 ___________     ___  __

            incarcerated  felon, appeals a  district court  judgment that

            dismissed    his    action    challenging     the    Veterans

            Administration's decision to  reduce his disability  benefits

            pursuant  to  38  U.S.C.      5513(a)(1)(requiring  temporary

            reduction of veterans' benefits paid to incarcerated felons).

            The  district  court  dismissed Bradley's  complaint  on  the

            grounds that  it lacked subject matter  jurisdiction under 38

            U.S.C.     511(a), 7252(a).   After thoroughly  reviewing the

            record and the  parties' briefs on  appeal, we conclude  that

            the district court order is clearly correct.  

                 Bradley's  complaint  seeks   to  reverse  the  Veterans

            Administration's decision to reduce his benefits based on his

            status  as an  incarcerated  felon.   The  district court  is

            prohibited from asserting jurisdiction over such claims by 38

            U.S.C.   511, and it is well established that Bradley may not

            circumvent  this  prohibition  by   asserting  constitutional

            claims.  See, e.g., Zuspann v. Brown, 60 F.3d 1156, 1159 (5th
                     ___  ____  _______    _____

            Cir.  1995), cert. denied, 116  S. Ct. 909  (1996); Sugrue v.
                         _____ ______                           ______

            Derwinski, 26 F.3d 8, 11 (2d Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S.
            _________                                _____ ______

            Ct. 2245  (1995); Larrabee  by Jones  v. Derwinski,  968 F.2d
                              __________________     _________

            1497,   1500-01   (2d   Cir.   1992);   Hicks   v.   Veterans
                                                    _____        ________

            Administration, 961 F.2d 1367,  1370 (8th Cir. 1992); Tietjen
            ______________                                        _______

            v. U.S. Veterans Administration, 884 F.2d 514, 515  (9th Cir.
               ____________________________

            1989);  Milliken  v. Gleason,  332  F.2d 122,  123  (1st Cir.
                    ________     _______

                                         -2-

            1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 1002 (1965).  Rather, Bradley's
                   _____ ______

            sole  remedy is  through  the procedures  established by  the

            Veterans Judicial Review Act, Pub. Law No. 100-687, 102 Stat.

            4105 (1988).  See Hall v. U.S. Dept. of Veterans  Affairs, 85
                          ___ ____    _______________________________

            F.3d 532, 535 (11th Cir. 1996)(per curiam).    

                 Bradley's contention  that 38  U.S.C.    511(a) violates

            Article  III and  his  right  of  access  to  the  courts  is

            frivolous.  See Marozsan v. United States, 90 F.3d 1284, 1288
                        ___ ________    _____________

            (7th Cir.  1996). Accordingly,  the judgment of  dismissal is

            summarily affirmed.  See Local Rule 27.1.
                      ________   ___

                                         -3-