Zaza v. OK Bureau of V.A.

• Decision Date: 26 January 2023
• Docket Number: CIV-23-75-F
• Parties: ALI S. ZAZA, Plaintiff, v. OK BUREAU OF V.A., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma

ALI S. ZAZA, Plaintiff,
v.
OK BUREAU OF V.A., Defendant.

No. CIV-23-75-F

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

January 26, 2023

ORDER

STEPHEN P. FRIOT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Ali S. Zaza, appearing pro se, has filed a complaint naming OK Bureau of V.A. as defendant.^[1] Upon review of the complaint, it appears Mr. Zaza is seeking to sue the Oklahoma Department of Veterans Affairs. He claims as follows:

The OK B VA Rep on October 15, 2021 called and suggested I drop the appeal telling me that if I won the appeal, I would not get an increase in VA comp. [T]his is deceiving and malice. . . The fact is that I wou[l]d get VA comp from the date of [initial filing in] 2004 [until] 2018. This fact was concealed and it was admitted by the Rep who called today trying to convince me to drop another appeal on Feb. 2023 The Board of Appeal reminded me to show up for Jan. 2022 appeal which I did in Muskogee to be told I have no docket case[.] An OK [B] VA Rep should not cheat veterans out of their entitlement. Deja vu 1800 “indian agents[.]”

Doc. no. 1, ECF p. 5.

1

As relief, Mr. Zaza requests an order for his appeal to be reinstated, that defendant's representative cease to try to convince veterans to drop their appeals, and recovery of court costs and fees.

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as such, must have a statutory basis to exercise jurisdiction.” Montoya v. Chao, 296 F.3d 952, 955 (10^thCir. 2002). The basic statutory grants of federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction are contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006). Section 1331 provides for federal-question jurisdiction, which exists if a plaintiff pleads a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. Id. Section 1332 provides for diversity jurisdiction, which exists if a plaintiff presents a claim between parties of diverse citizenship that exceeds the required jurisdictional amount, currently $75,000. Id.

In his complaint, Mr. Zaza invokes federal-question jurisdiction as the basis for federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction. He lists one federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false or fraudulent statements in any matter within the jurisdiction of the federal government), as the statute at issue. However, that statute is a criminal statute, which does not provide a private right of action for Mr. Zaza. Clements v. Chapman, 189...