Bracken v. United States

• Decision Date: 09 May 2019
• Docket Number: No. 18-1255C,18-1255C
• Parties: ASHLEY DAWN BRACKEN, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Claims Court

ASHLEY DAWN BRACKEN, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

No. 18-1255C

United States Court of Federal Claims

May 9, 2019

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

RCFC 12(b)(1); Subject-Matter Jurisdiction; RCFC 12(b)(6); Failure To State A Claim; Veterans Benefits; Illegal Exaction.

Michael Stanski, Attorney of Record, Jacksonville, FL, for plaintiff.

Jana Moses, Trial Attorney, Steven J. Gillingham, Assistant Director, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Director, Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

GRIGGSBY, Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, Ashley Dawn Bracken, brought this action seeking, among other things, to recover certain funds that she alleges have been wrongfully recouped by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (the "VA") pursuant to the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008, 38 U.S.C. §§ 3301-3327 (the "Post-9/11 GI Bill"). See generally Compl. The government has moved to dismiss this matter for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (6) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"). See generally Def. Mot. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the government's motion to dismiss and DISMISSES the complaint.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND¹

A. Factual Background

Plaintiff, Ashley Dawn Bracken, is the ex-spouse of a former servicemember in the United States Army Reserves (the "Army Reserves") and she is the recipient of certain educational assistance benefits provided by the VA pursuant to the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Compl. at ¶¶ 6-10; see also 38 U.S.C. §§ 3311, 3319. In this action, plaintiff alleges that the VA wrongfully terminated and sought to recoup these benefits after her former spouse separated from the Army Reserves. See generally Compl. As relief, plaintiff seeks, among other things: (1) to "recover monies taken" by the VA; (2) the "forgiveness of monies owed" to the VA; (3) the payment of certain funds that plaintiff owes to the university that she attended; and (4) certain declaratory relief. Id. at ¶¶ 28-42, Prayer for Relief.

1. The Post-9/11 GI Bill

As background, in 2008, Congress enacted the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act to provide educational assistance for certain veterans of the United States Armed Forces who served in the military on or after September 11, 2001. See generally 38 U.S.C. §§ 3301-3327. Pursuant to the Post-9/11 GI Bill, eligible servicemembers may receive educational assistance benefits if the servicemember satisfies certain conditions, including completing a period of active duty service, followed by either continued active duty service, or a qualifying discharge or release. See 38 U.S.C. § 3311(a)-(c).

Specifically relevant to this case, an eligible servicemember may transfer a portion of the educational assistance benefits to a spouse or child. 38 U.S.C. § 3319(a), (c). In this regard, the Post-9/11 GI Bill requires that a servicemember enter "an agreement to serve at least four more years as a member of the uniformed services" to transfer educational assistance benefits. 38 U.S.C. § 3319(b). The bill also provides that the amount of any transferred educational assistance benefits that is used by a spouse or child shall be treated as an overpayment, should a servicemember fail to complete the agreed-to service. 38 U.S.C. § 3319(i)(2). In addition, the Post-9/11 GI Bill provides that a servicemember and the servicemember's spouse or child areconsidered jointly and severally liable to the government for any such overpayment. 38 U.S.C. § 3319(i)(1).

2. The Payment And Recoupment Of Plaintiff's Benefits

Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that her ex-spouse, Christopher Bazzle, transferred some of his educational assistance benefits to plaintiff during their marriage. Compl. at ¶ 9. During the period 2015 to 2017, plaintiff attended classes at Keiser University and the VA provided her with educational assistance benefits, including funds for tuition, a housing allowance, and the purchase of books and supplies. Id. at ¶¶ 11, 15.

Although Mr. Bazzle incurred a four-year service obligation under the Post-9/11 GI Bill when he transferred educational assistance benefits to plaintiff, he did not complete this service obligation due to his involuntary discharge from the Army Reserves in September 2016. Id. at ¶¶ 12-13. And so, the VA has sought to recoup the educational assistance benefits provided to plaintiff. Id. at ¶¶ 18-19, 21-26.

B. Procedural Background

Plaintiff commenced this action on August 21, 2018. See generally id. On December 21, 2018, the government filed a motion to dismiss this matter pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1) and (6). See generally Def. Mot.

On February 4, 2019, plaintiff filed a response and opposition to the government's motion to dismiss. See generally Pl. Resp. On February 19, 2019, the government filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss. See generally Def. Reply.

This matter having been fully briefed, the Court resolves the pending motion to dismiss.

III. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Jurisdiction And RCFC 12(b)(1)

When deciding a motion to dismiss upon the ground that the Court does not possess subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1), this Court must assume that all undisputed facts alleged in the complaint are true and must draw all reasonable inferences in the non-movant's favor. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); RCFC 12(b)(1). But, plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction and she must do so by apreponderance of the evidence. Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Should the Court determine that "it lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter, it must dismiss the claim." Matthews v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 274, 278 (2006).

In this regard, the United States Court of Federal Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction and "possess[es] only that power authorized by Constitution and statute. . . ." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The Tucker Act grants the Court jurisdiction over:

[A]ny claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort.

28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). The Tucker Act is, however, "a jurisdictional statute; it does not create any substantive right enforceable against the United States for money damages. . . . [T]he Act merely confers jurisdiction upon [the United States Court of Federal Claims] whenever the substantive right exists." United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976) (alterations original). And so, to pursue a substantive right against the United States under the Tucker Act, a plaintiff must identify and plead a money-mandating constitutional provision, statute, or regulation; an express or implied contract with the United States; or an illegal exaction of money by the United States. Cabral v. United States, 317 F. App'x 979, 981 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); see also Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2003). "[A] statute or regulation is money-mandating for jurisdictional purposes if it 'can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation for damages sustained as a result of the breach of the duties [it] impose[s].'" Fisher, 402 F.3d at 1173 (quoting United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 217 (1983)).

Specifically relevant to this dispute, this Court has recognized that "[c]laims for veterans' benefits are not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims." See, e.g., Berkowitz v. United States, No. 07-328C, 2014 WL 4387851, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 4, 2014) (citing Van Allen v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 294, 296 (2005)). And so, "[d]isputes concerning veterans' benefits are handled internally by the VA" at the Board of Veterans Appeals, with appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Berkowitz, 2014 WL 4387851, at *4; see 38 U.S.C. §§ 7105, 7252.

B. RCFC 12(b)(6)

When deciding a motion to dismiss based upon failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(6), this Court similarly assumes that all undisputed facts alleged in the complaint are true and must draw all reasonable inferences in the non-movant's favor. See Call Henry, Inc. v. United States, 855 F.3d 1348, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Bell/Heery v. United States, 739 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). And so, to survive a motion to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain facts sufficient to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

When the complaint fails to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face," the Court must dismiss the complaint. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). On the other hand, "[w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity," and determine whether it is plausible, based upon these facts, to find against the defendant. Id. at 678-79 ("A claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.").

C. Illegal Exaction

This Court possesses subject-matter jurisdiction to consider illegal exaction claims when the alleged exaction "is based upon an asserted statutory power." Norman v. United States, 429 F.3d 1081, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has recognized that an illegal exaction occurs when a "'plain...