Jackson v. Shinseki
| Decision Date | 09 August 2011 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 10-cv-02596-MSK-CBS |
| Parties | DAVID JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. ERIC KEN SHINSEKI, United States Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and LYNETTE A. ROFF, Director, VA Eastern Colorado HCS, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
Honorable Marcia S. Krieger
THIS MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Mr. Jackson's Amended Complaint1 (# 51), Mr. Jackson's response (# 53), and the Defendants' reply (# 56); Mr. Jackson's Objections (# 40) to the December 16, 2010 Order (# 36) of the Magistrate Judge denying Mr. Jackson's motion to compel and motion for leave to file an amended pleading, and the Defendants' response (# 43); Mr. Jackson's Objections (# 52) to the Magistrate Judge's February 7, 2011 Minute Order (# 50) denying certain discovery requests by Mr. Jackson, and the Defendants' response (# 54); and Mr. Jackson's Objections (# 67) to the Magistrate Judge's May 11, 2011 Minute Order (# 66) denying Mr. Jackson's emergency motion to effectuate service, the Defendants' response (# 68), and Mr. Jackson's reply (# 69).
The Court's ability to recount the relevant facts is somewhat complicated by a certain degree of impenetrability in Mr. Jackson's pro se filings. Those filings are somewhat jumbled as to chronology, erroneously assume a reader's familiarity with certain proceedings involving Mr. Jackson without providing necessary context and detail, and often digress into legal arguments of dubious relevance. Nevertheless, the Court is obligated to liberally construe Mr. Jackson's pleadings, overlooking (to the extent possible) defects in Mr. Jackson's use legal terminology and proper English grammar and syntax. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). With that obligation in mind, the Court engages in the following attempt to untangle Mr. Jackson's allegations and claims. Unless otherwise indicated, the Court has extracted the information below from Mr. Jackson's Amended Complaint (# 47), as well as from exhibits attached by Mr. Jackson to his initial Complaint (# 4), and which he continues to refer to (but not attach) in the Amended Complaint.
Until some point in 1994, Mr. Jackson was employed by the Department of Veteran's Affairs ("VA") as a Ward Clerk. In or about April 1994, an Employee Assistance Program counselor named Pam Till raised some concerns about Mr. Jackson's suitability for continued employment. According to a June 22, 2007 letter from the VA, attached as an exhibit to Mr. Jackson's Complaint, he had been "exhibiting signs of paranoia and threatening behavior to staff."2 At the VA's instruction, Mr. Jackson underwent a mental evaluation with a psychiatrist retained by the VA. At the conclusion of that evaluation, the psychiatrist sent a report of theevaluation to the VA, but did not provide a copy to Mr. Jackson. The explanation for not providing Mr. Jackson with a copy was that the psychiatrist had been retained by the VA and that Mr. Jackson would need to obtain a copy of the report from the VA.3
One of the recurring complaints of Mr. Jackson in this case is his inability to obtain from the VA a copy of the psychiatric report compiled on him. He contends that the VA's failure to maintain that evaluation record violations the Privacy Act. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1)(c) (). Mr. Jackson contends that "his medical records" - presumably the psychiatric evaluation report - "cleared him to return to duty," but nevertheless, he contends the VA relieved him of duty and terminated his employment on or about April 14, 1994.4
Mr. Jackson also believes that his termination of employment on what are essentially grounds of mental illness rendered him eligible for Worker's Compensation benefits under 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. Mr. Jackson contends that the VA had an obligation to supply him withinformation and forms with which to make a claim for Worker's Compensation benefits, in particular, a form known as a CA-7.5 Citing 20 C.F.R. § 10.106 ().6 Mr. Jackson alleges that the VA did not provide him with a Form CA-7, nor did it advise him of his rights under the Worker's Compensation Act. Mr. Jackson also appears to seek review of the VA's decision terminating his employment under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.
In 2000, Mr. Jackson was involved with divorce proceedings, in which issues of child custody were raised. Mr. Jackson contends that his wife "filed his military psychiatric records" in that proceeding, which caused the presiding judge to express to Mr. Jackson that the judge "received information on her desk about Mr. Jackson that troubled her." Apparently, in or about 2007, the divorce court "took [away Mr. Jackson's] parental rights and ordered that he only have supervised visitation" with the children. (Mr. Jackson also raises a concern that his wife "mighthave sent his psychiatric record to the United States Department of Commerce," costing him another job in 2000.) He states that he "still has no idea what the court[ ] was given." Mr. Jackson also appears to complain that, in or about 2000, the VA sent copies of his medical records to the Arapahoe County Probation Department.
At some point thereafter, Mr. Jackson wrote to Congresswoman Diana DeGette "to find out how his psychiatric records found [their] way into the hands of his wife."7 He stated that he believed "someone in the [VA] . . . had released his psychiatric records in a retaliatory action surrounding his wrongful termination as Ward Clerk in the year 1994." The VA responded to Mr. Jackson's concerns in its own letter to Congresswoman DeGette, noting (in addition to those portions quoted above) that "in 1999, records were released to both his wife Vera Jackson and to the Arapahoe Probation Department," apparently pursuant to "releases which were signed by Mr. Jackson" that the VA included with its letter. Mr. Jackson contends that the releases he gave were narrow in their scope and "did not give the VA . . . permission to copy and redisclose [his] psychiatric records."
Mr. Jackson sought to obtain his own copies of the records the VA maintained about him, making a request on or about July 27, 2007. The VA responded to his request on or about November 4, 2010. He acknowledges that, on that date, the VA "mailed Mr. Jackson his medical records [from] April 1994," but appears to complain that this constituted "only a partial medical record." With a few exceptions - the missing psychiatric evaluation report and the CA-7 form Mr. Jackson believes should have been included - it is not entirely clear from theAmended Complaint what particular information Mr. Jackson believes should have been included in that record but was not. Any complaints about the completeness of the record in any other respects are, at best, oblique. For example, he states that the records "show that he was relieved of duty on 4/14/1994 based on [Ms. Till] questioning Mr. Jackson's stability[, y]et the June 22, 2007 letter lists the cause of Mr. Jackson's removal in part on paranoia."
Under the portion of the form Complaint where plaintiffs are asked to specifically identify their claims for relief, Mr. Jackson's Amended Complaint formally lists three claims. First, he alleges that "Under the Privacy Act, . . . Mr. Jackson requests a court order directed to the agency to produce all procedure, statutes, and laws used in 1999 to copy and redisclose [his] psychiatric record to his wife and Arapahoe Probation Department"; he requests "an exact copy of the records sent to" his wife and the Probation Department; he "requests a copy of the record showing the stated nature and the purpose for the agency having copied his records in the year 1999," apparently referring to the transmission of those records to his wife and the Probation Department; and he requests a copy of "the parties" - apparently the wife and Probation Department's - "request for the copies with their signatures and stated nature and purpose of the need for copies." His second claim for relief seeks "a court order for all information used by the VA . . . to send him off-duty as a Ward Clerk . . . includ[ing] the initial writings by Pam Till showing her stated reasoning behind questioning [his] stability and . . . all information reported to the Federal Worker's Compensation Office." His third claim for relief requests an order "to return Mr. Jackson to his federal position as Ward Clerk with back pay and benefits," and "any federal Worker's Compensation funds he should have received."
The Defendants move to dismiss (# 51) Mr. Jackson's Amended Complaint, arguing: (i)the pleading fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, in that the Defendants cannot ascertain the scope and nature of the claims made; (ii) claims by Mr. Jackson that the VA improperly disclosed his records to his wife or the Probation Department in violation of the Privacy Act are barred by that statute's two-year statute of limitations; (iii) any claim by Mr. Jackson that the VA violated the Privacy Act's provisions entitling individuals to access their records is untimely, insofar as Mr. Jackson knew that the VA had not produced records responsive to his July 2007 request within a short period after that request, rendering the claim untimely; (iv) to the extent Mr. Jackson asserts...
To continue reading
Request your trial