Beamon v. Brown

• Decision Date: 18 September 1997
• Docket Number: No. 96-3923,96-3923
• Citation: 125 F.3d 965
• Parties: James BEAMON; Charles Boyd; Cecil Holbrook, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Jesse BROWN, in his official capacity as Secretary, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 965

125 F.3d 965

James BEAMON; Charles Boyd; Cecil Holbrook, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Jesse BROWN, in his official capacity as Secretary Defendant-Appellee.

No. 96-3923.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Argued Aug. 7, 1997.

Decided Sept. 18, 1997.

Michael J. Mooney, Barbara J. Cook (argued and briefed), Cincinnati, Ohio, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Barbara C. Biddle (briefed), Department of Justice Appellate Staff, Civil Division, Sandra Wien Simon (argued and briefed), U.S. Department of Justice, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: LIVELY, KENNEDY, and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.

KENNEDY, Circuit Judge.

OPINION

Plaintiffs-Appellants, James Beamon, Charles Boyd, and Cecil Holbrook, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons, appeal the District Court's order granting the motion of defendant-appellee, Jesse Brown, in his official capacity as Secretary, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, to dismiss plaintiffs' claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.

I. Facts

Plaintiffs, honorably discharged wartime veterans, have brought this action, on behalf of themselves and seeking to represent a class of similarly situated veterans, to challenge the manner in which the Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") processes claims for veterans' benefits. Each of the plaintiffs has applied for benefits from the VA and has experienced delays in receiving final decisions. Mr. Beamon applied for benefits in 1989 and waited seven years before receiving a favorable decision granting him pension benefits. He received those benefits after the District Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims, but at the time this appeal was filed he still had not received a final decision on his claim for service-related disability benefits. In 1988, Mr. Boyd filed a claim for refund of withheld funds. At the time this complaint was filed with the District Court in August of 1995, he had yet to receive a final decision from the VA. He subsequently received $8700 from the VA. At the time this appeal was filed, Boyd believed that he was owed $9000, not the $8700 he received, and was not sure whether he agreed with the amount of the VA's refund. Mr. Holbrook filed for service related disability benefits in 1992 and at the time this appeal was filed had not yet received a final decision from the VA.

Plaintiffs assert that the VA's procedures for processing claims cause unreasonable delays, thereby violating their rights under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 555(b); under § 302 of the Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 1994 ("VBIA"), 38 U.S.C. § 5101 (Supp.1995) (note); and under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. On August 2, 1995, plaintiffs filed this complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. They sought the following relief: a declaratory judgment finding the VA to be in violation of the law; injunctive relief compelling the VA to develop and implement standards and procedures for the timely handling of claims filed with the Cleveland Regional Office of the VA or with the Board of Veterans' Appeals ("BVA"); and injunctive relief ordering the VA to develop and implement standards and procedures for the timely handling of claims remanded from the BVA to the Cleveland Regional Office. Plaintiffs continued to pursue their individual benefit claims through the VA's administrative appeal system, and claim that their action in the District Court challenged only the procedures that the VA employs, not any of its substantive decisions. On August 2, 1995, plaintiffs also filed a motion for class certification. On July 16, 1996 the District Court entered its order granting defendant's motion to dismiss. The District Court did not rule on the motion for class certification. This timely appeal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

II. Discussion

A. Standard of Review

We review a district court ruling granting a motion to dismiss de novo. See, e.g., Hiser v. City of Bowling Green, 42 F.3d 382, 383 (6th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1120, 115 S.Ct. 1984, 131 L.Ed.2d 871 (1995); Friends of Crystal River v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 35 F.3d 1073, 1077-78 (6th Cir.1994).

B. The APA Waiver of Sovereign Immunity

The doctrine of sovereign immunity removes subject matter jurisdiction in lawsuits against the United States unless the government has consented to suit. United Liberty Life Ins. Co. v. Ryan, 985 F.2d 1320, 1325 (6th Cir.1993) (citing United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212, 103 S.Ct. 2961, 2965, 77 L.Ed.2d 580 (1983)). Such a waiver of sovereign immunity " 'must be clear, express, and unambiguous.' " Id. (quoting Ohio v. United States Dep't of Energy, 904 F.2d 1058, 1059 (6th Cir.1990), rev'd on other grounds, 503 U.S. 607, 112 S.Ct. 1627, 118 L.Ed.2d 255 (1992)). In this case, plaintiffs argue that the APA provides the necessary waiver of sovereign immunity.

Although the APA provides a broad waiver of sovereign immunity, codified at 5 U.S.C. § 702, ¹ the waiver is limited by two exceptions that are relevant to this case. First, § 701(a)(1) provides that Chapter 7 of the APA, including § 702's waiver of sovereign immunity, does not apply to cases in which "statutes preclude judicial review." 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(1). Second, under the APA, a federal district court may only review "[a]gency action made reviewable by statute and final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court." 5 U.S.C. § 704. Thus, the APA does not express the U.S. government's consent to suit if an alternate adequate remedy is available to review a final agency action.

C. The Court of Veterans Appeals as an Alternate Adequate Remedy

In 1988, Congress enacted the Veterans Judicial Review Act of 1988, Pub.L. No. 100-687, Tit. III, 102 Stat. 4105, 4113-4122 (codified in sections scattered in 38 U.S.C.) ("VJRA"), and established a multi-tiered framework for the adjudication of claims regarding veterans benefits. The process begins when a claimant files for benefits with a regional office of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The regional office of the VA "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 veterans." 38 U.S.C. § 511(a). Upon receiving a decision from the regional office, the claimant may appeal to the BVA, which either issues the final decision of the Secretary or remands the claim to the regional office for further development and subsequent appeal. See 38 U.S.C. § 7104. The Court of Veterans Appeals ("CVA"), an Article I court established by Congress in the VJRA, has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from the final decisions by the BVA. 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the CVA. 38 U.S.C. § 7292. If necessary, a claimant may petition the United States Supreme Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See 38 U.S.C. § 7291.

The District Court concluded that this system of judicial review provides plaintiffs with an alternate adequate remedy. The court specifically found that Congress gave the CVA two sources of power with which it can remedy claims of unreasonable administrative delay or inaction. First, the All Writs Act empowers "[t]he Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress to issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law." 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Second, Congress specifically empowered the CVA to "compel action of the Secretary unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed." 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(2). With either of these powers, the Court concluded, "the CVA has power ... to remedy adequately the unreasonable delay alleged by the plaintiffs." Joint Appendix at 37. Because the court found that the CVA provided plaintiffs with an adequate alternative remedy, it concluded that plaintiffs' claims fell within § 704's exception to the APA's waiver of sovereign immunity. The court recognized that without a waiver of sovereign immunity it lacked subject matter jurisdiction in this case.

Plaintiffs acknowledge that this system provides adequate remedies for individuals claiming VA inaction or unreasonably delayed benefits decisions. Plaintiffs argue, however, that the CVA would provide an inadequate remedy for their claims. In particular, plaintiffs allege that the CVA, an appellate court, does not have the power to conduct discovery, issue declaratory judgments, certify class actions, or issue injunctive relief that would address constitutional deficiencies in the VA's procedures. These powers, plaintiffs argue, are all necessary to provide an adequate remedy for their claims, which seek review of VA procedures not prompt decisions on their individual claims under the current process. They assert, therefore, that the APA's waiver of sovereign immunity, codified at 5 U.S.C. § 702, applies to their claims.

Plaintiffs argue that Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879, 108 S.Ct. 2722, 101 L.Ed.2d 749 (1988), supports their assertion that as a court of limited jurisdiction the CVA would be unable to provide an adequate remedy. In Bowen, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Court of Claims, with only the power to award monetary relief, was an inadequate forum for the resolution of disputes surrounding "the rather complex ongoing relationship between" the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the United States Department of Health and Human Services. 487 U.S. at 905, 108 S.Ct. at 2738. The Court decided that the Court of Claims lacked...