Jefferson v. Repko

• Decision Date: 02 March 2020
• Docket Number: 4:19-cv-2318 RWS
• Parties: DAVID JEFFERSON, Plaintiff, v. KEITH REPKO, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

DAVID JEFFERSON, Plaintiff, v. KEITH REPKO, Defendant.

4:19-cv-2318 RWS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

March 2, 2020

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. After review of the financial information the Court will grant plaintiff's motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Furthermore, after reviewing the complaint, the Court will dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and alternatively, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Fed.R.Civ.P.12(h)(3) and alternatively, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Background

Plaintiff is a pro se litigant who filed a complaint against defendant Keith Repko, Medical Center Director at the Veteran's Affairs Medical Center in St. Louis on August 7, 2019.

In the complaint, plaintiff indicated that the basis of this Court's jurisdiction was a federal question. Specifically, in the section of the form complaint for asserting federal question jurisdiction, plaintiff stated: "Veterans Benefits." In his "Statement of Claim" section, plaintiff stated in full:

(1)As the individual responsible for the operation of the St. Louis VA medical Center Keith Repko has failed to provide me care for a painful back injury suffered by me as a result of a tractor-trailer incident in Wyoming in July 2018. Specifically, chiropractic care, which I have requested in a normal fashion more than once. (2) Keith Repko allowed a VA social worker to take a Section 8 Voucher from me via a telephone call in January of 2018. I am homeless. (3) Keith Repko has barred me from the Hope Recovery Center at 515 N. Jefferson, St. Louis, MO (4) Keith Repko has placed on my VA electronic record a flag indicating I am violent. (5) Keith Repko allows a substantial transfer of U.S. taxpayer dollars to two private institutions, St. Louis University and Washington University.

Plaintiff supplemented these allegations with several exhibits that were sent to the Court after the filing of the complaint.¹ The exhibits included a letter from a HUD social worker to plaintiff relative to his Ameren bill; a collection letter from National Credit Systems, Inc.; a letter from a resolution specialist with Supportive Services with Veteran Families; and a letter from the VA Health Care System in St. Louis referencing scheduling him for chiropractic care.

Discussion

For the reasons discussed below, plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Subject matter jurisdiction refers to a court's power to decide a certain class of cases. LeMay v. U.S. Postal Serv., 450 F.3d 797, 799 (8^th Cir. 2006). "Federal courts are not courts of general jurisdiction; they have only the power that is authorized by Article III of the Constitution and the statutes enacted by Congress pursuant thereto." Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). See also Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013) ("Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power authorized by Constitution and statute"). The presence of subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold requirement that must be assured in every federal case. Kronholm v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 915 F.2d 1171, 1174 (8^th Cir. 1990). See also Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 823 F.2d 214, 216 (8^th Cir. 1987) ("The threshold requirement in every federal case is jurisdiction and we have admonished the district court to be attentive to a satisfaction of jurisdictional requirements in all cases"). As such, the issue of subject matterjurisdiction may be raised at any time, by any party or the court. Gray v. City of Valley Park, Mo., 567 F.3d 976, 982 (8^th Cir. 2009).

Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over both federal question cases and diversity of citizenship cases. See Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Tribal Court of Spirit Lake Indian Reservation, 495 F.3d 1017, 1020 (8^th Cir. 2007) (finding that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking if neither diversity of citizenship nor federal question jurisdiction applies); and McLaurin v. Prater, 30 F.3d 982, 984-85 (8^th Cir. 1994) (noting that Congress has directed that district courts shall have jurisdiction in both federal question and diversity cases). Here, plaintiff has indicated that the basis of this Court's jurisdiction is federal question jurisdiction. As explained below, however, neither federal question nor diversity of citizenship jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the complaint.

a. Federal Question Jurisdiction

Federal question jurisdiction gives district courts "original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." Griffioen v. Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Ry. Co., 785 F.3d 1182, 1188 (8^th Cir. 2015). See also 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Whether a claim arises under federal law is determined by reference to the "well-pleaded complaint." Great Lakes Gas Transmission Ltd. P'ship v. Essar Steel Minn. LLC, 843 F.3d 325, 329 (8^th Cir. 2016). The well-pleaded complaint rule provides that jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of a plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint. Markham v. Wertin, 861 F.3d 748, 754 (8^th Cir. 2017). See also Thomas v. United Steelworkers Local 1938, 743 F.3d 1134, 1139 (8^th Cir. 2014) ("Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, a federal question must exist on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint in order to establish federal question subject matter jurisdiction"). Plaintiff's complaint must establish "either that federal law creates the cause ofaction or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law." Williams v. Ragnone, 147 F.3d 700, 702 (8^th Cir. 1998).

Plaintiff has asserted federal question jurisdiction as the basis of this Court's jurisdiction. However, he has not indicated what federal statute, federal treaty, or constitutional provision is at issue in this case. Rather, he broadly states only that "veterans' benefits" were denied to him. He makes no further allegations regarding what this "discrimination" entailed. He claims that the director of the Veterans Affairs Medical Center "has failed to provide [him] care for a painful back injury." Plaintiff does not include in his complaint when this alleged failure occurred or how defendant Repko allegedly denied him care. Instead, plaintiff merely states that he was denied "chiropractic" care. Yet, one of plaintiff's own exhibits, dated January 17, 2020, indicates that the VA St. Louis Health Care System had been attempting to contact plaintiff to provide him with chiropractic care.

Additionally, although plaintiff alleges that defendant Repko had a social worker take his Section 8 voucher from him and barred him from the Hope Recovery Center, such that he became homeless, he has provided evidence in one of his exhibits that he had housing as of December 27, 2019, and was enrolled in Supportive Services for Veteran Families. Plaintiff's broad-based allegations are merely conclusory and cannot form the basis for this Court's jurisdiction.² TheCourt is not required to accept such conclusory allegations as true. See Wiles v. Capitol Indem. Corp., 280 F.3d 868, 870 (8^th Cir. 2002) (stating that "the court is free to ignore legal conclusions, unsupported conclusions, unwarranted inferences and sweeping legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations").

Plaintiff has not provided any factual allegations regarding his last two claims - that defendant Repko flagged plaintiff as violent and that he transferred taxpayer money to two college institutions. Moreover, plaintiff has not articulated how these claims arise under federal law or in some way relate to violations of the Constitution.

To the extent plaintiff is attempting to assert a claim against defendant Repko, the head of the Veterans Medical Center, under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. § §2671 et seq., the Court finds that plaintiff has not stated such a claim.

Plaintiff has not clearly enunciated a claim under the FTCA, however, it does appear that he seeks to redress an allegedly wrongful veteran benefits determination, or delay of his receipt of a claims file relating to housing issues. Nevertheless, plaintiff alleges no facts that can be liberally construed as demonstrating that state law would impose liability on a private individual in similar circumstances, and he therefore fails to state a valid FTCA claim. See First Nat. Bank in Brookings v. United States, 829 F.2d 697, 700 (8th Cir. 1987).³

The Court notes that plaintiff also has not brought a Bivens⁴ claim against defendant Repko. Plaintiff does not state a viable Bivens claim against Repko because he does not allege, throughfactual circumstances, that Repko himself was personally involved in any of the alleged misconduct. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675-77 ("Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.").

Finally, this Court lacks jurisdiction to redress veteran benefits determinations, and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has specifically refused to recognize a Bivens action in cases alleging a wrongful delay or denial of veterans' benefits. See Mehrkens v. Blank, 556 F.3d 865, 870 (8th Cir. 2009) (recognizing that Congress enacted the Veterans' Judicial Review Act to establish a framework for adjudication of veterans' benefits claims, and that body is better suited to augment that scheme with new remedies); see also Radford v. United States, 178 F. Supp. 3d 784, 790-91 (E.D. Mo. 2016).

b. Diversity of Citizenship Jurisdiction

"Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), district courts have original diversity jurisdiction over civil actions when the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, without considering...