Veterans for Common Sense v. Peake, C-07-3758 SC.
| Decision Date | 25 June 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. C-07-3758 SC.,C-07-3758 SC. |
| Citation | 563 F.Supp.2d 1049 |
| Parties | VETERANS FOR COMMON SENSE and Veterans United for Truth, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. James B. PEAKE, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, United States Department of Veterans Affairs; James P. Terry, Chairman, Board of Veterans Appeals; Daniel L. Cooper, Under Secretary, Veterans Benefits Administration; Bradley G. Mayes, Director, Compensation and Pension Service; Dr. Michael J. Kussman, Under Secretary, Veterans Health Administration; Pritz K. Navara, Veterans Service Center Manager, Oakland Regional Office, Department of Veterans Affairs, United States of America, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Melissa Wendy Kasnitz, Jennifer Weiser Bezoza, Katrina Kasey Corbit, Sidney M. Wolinsky, Disability Rights Advocates, Berkeley, CA, Arturo J. Gonzalez, Heather A. Moser, Stacey Michelle Sprenkel, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA, Gordon P. Erspamer, Morrison & Foerster, Paul Joseph Taira, Walnut Creek, CA, William Daniel Janicki, Attorney at Law, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Daniel Bensing, Steven Yale Bressler, James Schwartz, Kyle Renee Freeny, Ronald J. Wiltsie, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, Judith Z. Gold, Derek F. Knerr, Jeffrey Akira Finucane, Heller Ehrman LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants.
As a preliminary summary to this decision, the Court concludes: In reviewing each of the items of relief requested by Plaintiffs, the grievances of Plaintiffs are misdirected. The remedies to the problems, deficiencies, delays and inadequacies complained of are not within the jurisdiction of this Court. Rather, this authority lies with Congress, the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA"), the adjudication system within the VA, and the Federal Circuit. Congress has bestowed district courts with limited jurisdiction. Congress has specifically precluded district courts from reviewing veterans' benefits decisions and has entrusted decisions regarding veterans' medical care to the discretion of the VA Secretary. The Court can find no systemic violations system-wide that would compel district court intervention. The broad injunctive relief that Plaintiffs request is outside the scope of this Court's jurisdiction. The statutes and caselaw are quite clear as to the extent of this Court's authority. Among them is 38 U.S.C. § 511, which states in part:
In addition, 38 U.S.C. § 1710(a)(1) provides that the medical care veterans receive is to be determined by the Secretary, and under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., judicial review is prohibited where actions are "committed to agency discretion by law." 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2). For the foregoing and following reasons, Plaintiffs' requested relief is DENIED. The Court now proceeds with its finding of facts and conclusions of law.
Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans for Truth ("Plaintiffs") are non-profit organizations devoted to improving the lives of veterans. Plaintiffs filed the present lawsuit in July 2007, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the VA, alleging that the manner in which the VA provides mental health care and the procedures for obtaining veteran disability benefits violate various statutory and constitutional rights. Plaintiffs' Complaint seeks declaratory relief for the following: (1) denial of due process in violation of the Fifth Amendment; (2) denial of access to the courts in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments; (3) violation of 38 U.S.C. § 1710(e)(1)(D) relating to medical care for returning veterans; and (4) violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Compl., Docket No. 1, ¶¶ 258-72. In addition, Plaintiffs' fifth cause of action seeks injunctive relief. Id. ¶¶ 273-78.
On January 10, 2008, this Court issued an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ("Motion to Dismiss Order"). Docket No. 93. In that Order, the Court held that Plaintiffs' first, second, and third claims survived Defendants' various challenges, including standing, sovereign immunity, and subject matter jurisdiction. The Court dismissed Plaintiffs' fourth claim.
After Defendants submitted their Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Docket No. 88. The Court scheduled a hearing on this motion and from March 3 through March 6, the Court heard testimony and received evidence. At the close of the hearing, in light of the issues raised by Plaintiffs and the importance of addressing Plaintiffs' allegations promptly, the Court continued the matter and set an expedited schedule for discovery and for consideration of Plaintiffs' Request for Permanent Injunction and Declaratory Relief. A bench trial was then held from April 21 through April 30, 2008.
After hearing testimony and argument during almost three weeks of trial and reviewing the parties' voluminous submissions, two things have become clear to the Court: the VA may not be meeting all of the needs of the nation's veterans, and the remedies proposed by Plaintiffs are beyond the power of this Court.
An association has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members when its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right, the interests at stake are germane to the organization's purpose, and neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.
For Plaintiffs' members to have standing to sue in their own right, they must satisfy three elements. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992).
First, the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized ... and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.... Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court.... Third, it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.
Id. (internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations omitted). "Since [these elements] are not mere pleading requirements but rather an indispensable part of the plaintiffs case, each element must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff, bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation." Id. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130. Thus, at the final stage of the proceedings, any disputed facts "must be supported adequately by the evidence adduced at trial." Id. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (internal quotation marks omitted).
"The United States must waive its sovereign immunity before a federal court may adjudicate a claim brought against a federal agency." Rattlesnake Coalition v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 509 F.3d 1095, 1103 (9th Cir.2007) (citing United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538, 100 S.Ct. 1349, 63 L.Ed.2d 607 (1980)). As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, various of Plaintiffs' challenges fail because of the lack of a valid waiver of sovereign immunity. The Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, provides such a waiver in certain circumstances and "permits a citizen suit against an agency when an individual has suffered `a legal wrong because of agency action' or has been `adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute.'" Id. (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 702). "This provision contains two separate requirements." Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871, 882, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 111 L.Ed.2d 695 (1990). "First, the person claiming a right to sue must identify some `agency action' that affects him in the specified fashion...." Id. Second, "the party seeking review under § 702 must show that he has suffered legal wrong because of the challenged agency action or is adversely affected or aggrieved by that action within the meaning of the relevant statute." Id. at 883, 110 S.Ct. 3177 (internal quotation marks omitted).
"Agency action" is "the whole or a part of an agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or the equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act...." 5 U.S.C. § 551(13). The APA defines "agency rule" as "the whole or a part of an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy...." Id. § 551(4).
As an initial matter, Plaintiffs argue that their constitutional claims are not limited by the requirement that they challenge an agency action. In support of their argument, they rely on Presbyterian Church v. United States, 870 F.2d 518 (9th Cir.1989). In analyzing whether there was valid waiver of sovereign immunity, the court in Presbyterian Church held that "§ 702's waiver of sovereign immunity is not limited to suits challenging `agency action.'" Id. at 525 n. 8.
Although Presbyterian Church has not been overruled, its vitality has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sense v. Shinseki
...district court issued a thorough Memorandum of Decision, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Veterans for Common Sense v. Peake, 563 F. Supp. 2d 1049 (N.D. Cal. 2008). The district court concluded that Veterans had standing to bring suit on behalf of their members, because the interest......
-
Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki
...later, issued a comprehensive Memorandum of Decision, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. See Veterans for Common Sense v. Peake (“ Veterans ”), 563 F.Supp.2d 1049 (N.D.Cal.2008). The district court denied VCS's various claims and concluded that ordering the relief requested by VCS wou......
-
Sense v. Shinseki, 08–16728.
...later, the district court issued a thorough Memorandum of Decision, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Veterans for Common Sense v. Peake, 563 F.Supp.2d 1049 (N.D.Cal.2008). The district court concluded that Veterans had standing to bring suit on behalf of their members, because the i......
-
Sense v. Shinseki
...the district court issued a thorough Memorandum of Decision, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Veterans for Common Sense v. Peake, 563 F. Supp. 2d 1049 (N.D. Cal. 2008). The district court concluded that Veterans had standing to bring suit on behalf of their members, because the inte......
-
Veterans' Benefits and Due Process
...2010/03/25/va_tests_system_for_electronic_disability_claims/. 10. Veterans for Common Sense v. Peake (VCS), 563 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1073 (N.D. Cal. 2008) aff'd in part, rev'd in part, sub nom. Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki, 644 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 11. Office of Inspector Gen., Dep't of......
-
Soldier Suicides and Outcrit Jurisprudence: an Anti-subordination Analysis
...Buy Into Surgenomics?, The Guardian, Feb. 6, 2010. 8. See Plaintiffs' Trial Brief at 17-18, Veterans for Common Sense v. Peake, 563 F. Supp. 2d 1049 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (No. C-07-3758-SC), 2008 WL 1815754; see also Veterans for Common Sense v. Peake, 563 F. Supp. 2d 1049 (N.D. Cal. 9. Througho......
-
Post-traumatic stress disorder in the military: the need for legislative improvement of mental health care for veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
...(14) Veterans Mental Health Services Enhancement Act of 2005, H.R. 922, 109th Cong. 2005. (15) Veterans for Common Sense v. Peake, 563 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1062-63. (N.D. Cal. 2008) (citing RAND study). In this action, a non-profit organization brought suit against the VA, alleging it violated......