Court Opinion

ID: 2811476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-06-24 23:01:54.702985+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:23:45.727813
License: Public Domain

~WM¥~VN¢<*Wy»nt , n 4. an

FILED
JUN232015

T COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRIC Clerk. U.S. Dlauici & Bankruptcy

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Courts for the; District of Columbia
JAMES K. LARRY, )
)
Petitioner, )
) Case: 1:15—cv-00981
v. ) Assigned To : Unassigned
) Assign. Date : 6/23/2015
A.L. HILL, etal., 3 Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil (F Deck)
Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court upon consideration of plaintiffs application to proceed in
forma pauperis and his pro se complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will

be dismissed.

Petitioner, who served in the United States Marine Corps, has been diagnosed with Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder. Comp]. at 1 (page numbers designated by plaintiff). In October
2005, petitioner “received a total 30% evaluation,” and he disputes this conclusion “claiming
entitlement to a total rating based upon individual unemployability due to his Service Connected
. . . disability.” Id. Although the Board of Veterans Appeals remanded plaintiff 5 claim to the
Regional Ofﬁce in Montgomery, Alabama “for further evaluation,” id. at 1-2, the Regional
Ofﬁce has yet to comply, id. at 2. Petitioner demands a writ of mandamus “to compel the
respondents to undertake such actions and efforts required to resolve the matter as to their failure
to complete their evaluation of [petitioner] as to his claim of eligibility for Total Disability

Individual Unemployability.” Id. at 4.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs “shall decide all questions of law and fact necessary to

a decision by the Secretary under a law that affects the provision of benefits by the Secretary to

kauwmv We . , a s

veterans or the dependents or survivors of veterans.” 38 U.S.C. § 511(a). The Secretary’s
decision “to any such question shall be ﬁnal and conclusive and may not be reviewed by any
other ofﬁcial or by any court, whether by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise.” Id.
Therefore, this federal district court does not have jurisdiction over matters relating to veterans
beneﬁts or the manner in which such claims are handled See Price v. United States, 228 F.3d
420, 421-22 (DC. Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (“As amended by the Veterans Judicial Review Act . .
. , the Veterans’ Beneﬁts Act of 1957 . . . precludes judicial review in Article III courts of
[Veterans Administration] decisions affecting the provision of veterans’ benefits”), cert. denied,
534 US. 903 (2001); Beamon v. Brown, 125 F.3d 965, 974 (6th Cir. 1997) (dismissing for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction plaintiffs’ challenge to constitutionality of procedures by which

Regional Ofﬁce and Board of Veterans Appeals adjudicate claims for beneﬁts).
The Court will dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An Order is

/ a '
w? a 4/
United Sta es District Judge

issued separately.

DATE: