Ward v. Jeffrey Parker ( 2021 )

FILED
3/30/2021
Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Court for the District of Columbia
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CLYDE E. WARD, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-00374 (UNA)
)
JEFFREY PARKER, )
)
Defendant. )
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint and
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The court will grant the application and dismiss
the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring the
court to dismiss an action “at any time” it determines that subject matter jurisdiction is wanting).
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized
by Constitution and statute,” and it is “presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction.”
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). A party
seeking relief in the district court must at least plead facts that bring the suit within the court’s
jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Failure to plead such facts warrants dismissal of the action.
Plaintiff is a resident of Toledo, Ohio, who has sued the U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs (“VA”) and a VA Judge. The complaint challenges decisions rendered by the U.S. Board
of Veterans Appeals and the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims concerning plaintiff’s
medical benefits. Form Compl. Sec. III (Statement of Claim). Plaintiff “want[s]” this “Court to
provide an adequate remedy within a venue providing a fundamentally fair and unbiased
adjudication of my claim[.]” Id. at 6. In addition to injunctive relief, plaintiff seeks money
damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388 (1971) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See id., Sec. II (Basis for Jurisdiction); Written Compl. at 1.
Decisions “affecting the provision of veterans’ benefits” are generally the exclusive
province of the Court of Veterans Appeals and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit. Price v. United States, 228 F.3d 420, 421 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (citing 38 U.S.C.
§ 511(a)); accord Hunt v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 739 F.3d 706, 707 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (per
curiam); Thomas v. Principi, 394 F.3d 970, 975 (D.C. Cir. 2005). “Benefit means any payment,
service, commodity, function, or status, entitlement to which is determined under laws
administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs pertaining to veterans and their dependents
and survivors.” 38 C.F.R. § 20.3(e).
Since plaintiff is seeking “the VA’s action . . . with respect to a veterans’ benefits matter,”
the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over his claim for injunctive relief. Price, 228 F.3d at421 (citing 38 U.S.C. § 511(a)); see also id. at 422 (“[C]ourts have consistently held that a federal
district court may not entertain constitutional or statutory claims whose resolution would require
the court to intrude upon the VA’s exclusive jurisdiction.”) (citing cases); Thomas, 394 F.3d at
975 (“Because adjudicating . . . allegations [of] failure to render appropriate medical services and
denial of . . . necessary medical care treatment would require the district court to determine first
whether the VA acted properly in providing . . . benefits, [such] claims are barred by section 511.”)
(internal quotation marks and omitted)); Verner v. U.S. Gov’t, 804 F. Supp. 381, 385 (D.D.C.
1992) (concluding that the “Court is clearly barred by § 511(a) from issuing” a preliminary
injunction to compel veteran’s medical treatment). District courts, such as this, also lack
jurisdiction to review another court’s decisions and order it to take any action. See United States
v. Choi, 818 F. Supp. 2d 79, 85 (D.D.C. 2011) (district courts “generally lack[] appellate
jurisdiction over other judicial bodies, and cannot exercise appellate mandamus over other
courts.”) (citing Lewis v. Green, 629 F. Supp. 546, 553 (D.D.C. 1986)); accord Atchison v. U.S.
Dist. Courts, 240 F. Supp. 3d 121, 126 n.6 (D.D.C. 2017) (“It is a well-established principle that
a district court can neither review the decisions of its sister court nor compel it to act.”).
With respect to plaintiff’s claim for damages, 38 U.S.C. § 511(a) is not necessarily a
jurisdictional bar to a claim that does not entail the review of a benefits decision. Blue Water Navy
Vietnam Veterans Ass’n, Inc. v. McDonald, 830 F.3d 570, 576 (D.C. Cir. 2016). But Congress has
not waived the United States’ immunity from suit under Bivens, see FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471,
485-86 (1994), which includes any official capacity claims against the VA Judge. See Kentucky v.
Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985) (“an official-capacity suit is, in all respects other than name,
to be treated as a suit against the entity”). Furthermore, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not apply to federal
actors. See Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 531 U.S. 288, 296 (2001);
Settles v. United States Parole Comm'n, 429 F.3d 1098, 1104 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
Additionally, to the extent plaintiff intends individual capacity claims against the VA
Judge, they are nonetheless barred because plaintiff ultimately seeks this court’s review “to
determine where [the VA Judge] and/or the VA/BVA acted properly in providing [] benefits,”
Written Compl. at 3, and thus “underlying the claim is an allegation that the VA unjustifiably
denied [ ] a veterans’ benefit[,]” McDonald, 830 F.3d at 574 (citation omitted) (alterations in
original), barring this court’s exercise of jurisdiction. And as pled, plaintiff fails to articulate
adequately the deprivation of a protected right. “Events may not have unfolded as Plaintiff wished,
but his dissatisfaction . . . [does] not form a basis for a due process violation.” Melton v. District
of Columbia, 85 F. Supp. 3d 183, 193 (D.D.C. 2015). Finally, “Judges enjoy absolute judicial
immunity from suits for money damages for all actions taken in the judge's judicial capacity, unless
these actions are taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d
1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (citing Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9 (1991)). As applicable here,
actions taken in the judge's official capacity include the performance of tasks that are an “integral
part of the judicial process.” Id.For all of these reasons, this case will be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this
memorandum opinion.
__________/s/_____________
Date: March 30, 2021 AMIT P. MEHTA
United States District Judge