Smith v. Holder

• Decision Date: 03 October 2014
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2:14cv404-WHA (WO)
• Parties: ANDREW JACKSON SMITH, Plaintiff, v. ERIC HOLDER, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama

ANDREW JACKSON SMITH, Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC HOLDER, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:14cv404-WHA (WO)

DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

October 3, 2014

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

On May 20, 2014 (Doc. No. 1), Plaintiff, a U.S. Army veteran and Alabama inmate incarcerated at the Elmore Correctional Facility in Elmore, Alabama, brought this pro se action naming as defendants Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States; President Barack Obama; and Eric K.Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.¹ Plaintiff contends the Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") has improperly reduced his veterans' disability payments and denied him medical care and educational benefits. Maintaining that he is 100% permanently and totally disabled, he apparently seeks a judgment directing the VA to initiate monthly payments to him for full disability, to give him all back-pay to which he is entitled, and to provide him with "education, medical, and all other benefits, as well." Doc. No. 1 at 5. He contends he has been treated inhumanely and directs his complaints about

Page 2

this alleged mistreatment toward "the VA, U.S.A., and Commander-In-Chief." Id. at 6. In addition, he seeks unspecified actual and punitive damages. Id. at 7.

For the reasons that follow, the undersigned Magistrate Judge finds that Plaintiff's action should be dismissed.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction" and, as such, they possess only the power to hear cases as authorized by the Constitution or the laws of the United States. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A federal court must dismiss a case whenever it appears the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3); Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 405 F.3d 964, 975 (11th Cir . 2005); University of South Alabama v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999) (once a federal court determines that it is without subject matter jurisdiction, the court is powerless to continue); Lovern v. Edwards, 190 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir. 1999). A court should inquire into whether it has subject matter jurisdiction at the earliest possible stage in the proceedings, and in fact, a federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking. Bochese, 405 F.3d at 975 (quoting University of South Alabama, 168 F.3d at 410); Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. Kraus-Anderson Const. Co., 607 F.3d 1268, 1273 (11th Cir. 2010).

Page 3

B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction under the VJRA

Upon review of Plaintiff's complaint, this court cannot discern a basis for subject matter jurisdiction over his claims. Although the factual basis for Plaintiff's complaint is murky, what is clear is that all his claims arise from the same basic allegation - that the VA has wrongfully handled and underpaid his veterans' benefits.²

Claims concerning veterans' benefits are governed by 38 U.S.C. § 511. Section 511 is part of the Veterans' Judicial Review Act of 1988 ("VJRA"), which creates an exclusive review procedure for resolving veterans' benefits disputes. Section 511 provides:

(a) The Secretary shall decide all questions of law and fact necessary to a decision by the Secretary under a law that affects the provision or benefits by the Secretary to veterans or the dependents or survivors of veterans. Subject to subsection (b), the decision of the Secretary as to any such question shall be final and conclusive and may not be reviewed by any other official or by any court, whether by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise.

(b) The second sentence of subsection(a) does not apply to-

(1) matters subject to section 502 of this title;

(2) matters covered by sections 1975 and 1984 of this title;

Page 4

(3) matters arising under chapter 37 of this title; and

(4) matters covered by chapter 72 of this title.

...