Ross v. United States, 72-1367.
| Decision Date | 26 July 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1367.,72-1367. |
| Citation | 462 F.2d 618 |
| Parties | Michael S. ROSS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Michael S. Ross, in pro. per.
William D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Frederick M. Brosio, Jr., Clarke A. Nicely, Asst. U. S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
Before BROWNING, HUFSTEDLER, and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
Appellant's complaint against the United States, the Veterans' Administration, the Air Force, a Naval Reserve doctor named Carden, and the members of the Veterans' Administration Rating Board and the Appeals Board was properly dismissed by the district court for want of jurisdiction of the subject matter.
The root of appellant's claim is that Dr. Carden caused a defamatory psychiatric report to be placed in appellant's file which was later used by the Rating Board to deny him veteran's benefits. He asserted that he was denied due process and that he was defamed and defrauded by the actions of the Rating and Appeals Boards. Although the complaint is in the form of a civil damage suit, the substance of the action is an attempt to obtain judicial review of a final determination by the Veterans' Administration. Title 38 U.S.C. § 211(a) forecloses judicial review, with exceptions not here material.1 (Fritz v. Director of Veterans Administration (9th Cir. 1970) 427 F.2d 154; Redfield v. Driver (9th Cir. 1966) 364 F.2d 812; Milliken v. Gleason (1st Cir. 1964) 332 F.2d 122, cert. denied, 379 U.S. 1002, 85 S.Ct. 723, 13 L.Ed.2d 703; see Lynch v. United States (1934) 292 U.S. 571, 587, 54 S.Ct. 840, 78 L.Ed. 1434.)
(Lynch v. United States, supra, 292 U.S. at 582, 54 S.Ct. at 845.)
Because the jurisdictional point disposes of the litigation, it is unnecessary to discuss appellant's remaining contentions.
The judgment is affirmed.
1 In pertinent part § 211(a) provides:
"The decisions of the Administrator on any question of law or fact under any law administered by the Veterans' Administration providing benefits for veterans and their dependents or survivors shall be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Czerkies v. U.S. Dept. of Labor
...even when the veteran advanced a constitutional argument. See Milliken v. Gleason, 332 F.2d 122 (1st Cir.1964); Ross v. United States, 462 F.2d 618 (9th Cir.1972); Rosen v. Walters, 719 F.2d 1422, 1423 (9th Cir.1983). Other circuits likewise held that Sec. 211(a) forbade review of individua......
-
Marozsan v. U.S.
...Rosen v. Walters, 719 F.2d 1422, 1423 (9th Cir.1983); Anderson v. Veterans Administration, 559 F.2d 935 (5th Cir.1977); Ross v. United States, 462 F.2d 618 (9th Cir.1972); de Rodulfa v. United States, 461 F.2d 1240, 1257-58 (D.C.Cir.1972); Milliken v. Gleason, 332 F.2d 122 (1st Cir.1964). D......
-
Moore v. Johnson
...the "substance" of the action to determine whether review, as is now required by Johnson v. Robison, is available. Ross v. United States, 462 F.2d 618, 619 (9th Cir.), Cert. denied, 409 U.S. 984, 93 S.Ct. 326, 34 L.Ed.2d 249 (1972). See Anderson v. Veterans Administration, 559 F.2d 935 (5th......
-
Marozsan v. United States, S 84-500.
...decision violates his constitutional rights. See, e.g. Anderson v. Veterans Administration, 559 F.2d 935 (5th Cir. 1977); Ross v. United States, 462 F.2d 618 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 984, 93 S.Ct. 326, 34 L.Ed.2d 249 (1972); DeRodulfa v. United States, 461 F.2d 1240 (D.C.Cir. 1972......