Shah v. Veterans Administration et al
Filing
10
ORDER Granting 3 Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and Dismissing Complaint. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 11/6/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
FERNANDO SHAH,
9
Plaintiff,
10
v.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
No. C-12-5293 EMC
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, et al.,
12
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS, AND DISMISSING
COMPLAINT
(Docket No. 3)
13
14
15
Plaintiff Fernando Shah has filed a complaint against the Veterans Administration1 and
16
Department of Veterans Affairs. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered a heat stroke and exhaustion
17
injury in July 1989 while a member of the military, resulting in disabling physical and psychological
18
conditions that exist to this day. He files suit for approval of all VA pension and disability benefits,
19
approval of appropriate VA medical examinations and rehabilitation treatments, and approval for
20
retroactive consideration. Plaintiff has also filed with the Court an application to proceed in forma
21
pauperis.
22
23
I.
A.
DISCUSSION
In Forma Pauperis Application
24
When presented with an application to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must first
25
determine if the applicant satisfies the economic eligibility requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff refers to the Veterans Administration by the acronym “VBA” in his complaint,
suggesting that he intended to name the Veterans Benefits Administration. See Compl., Docket No.
1, at 2.
1
Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226 n.5 (9th Cir. 1984). Section 1915(a) does not require an
2
applicant to demonstrate absolute destitution. See McCone v. Holiday Inn Convention Ctr., 797 F.2d
3
853, 854 (10th Cir. 1982) (citing Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 335 U.S. 331, 339
4
(1948)).
5
In his application, Plaintiff states that he is currently unemployed. He states that at his last
on April 12, 2011. Plaintiff also lists that he earned approximately $1682 “monthly net” and $2600,
8
but does not specify which of these sums was his salary, if either. Plaintiff lists the California EDD
9
under his last employment, so it is possible that one or the other of these sums, likely the smaller
10
figure, reflects the amount of unemployment insurance he received following his termination. He
11
For the Northern District of California
job, he made approximately $16 to $25 per hour, but was suspended on July 28, 2010 and terminated
7
United States District Court
6
now receives $853 monthly on SSDI. He does not own a home, only has $350 in his bank account,
12
and does not have any other assets. Moreover, he owes $5000 on a credit card and approximately
13
$4500 in student loans. Given this information, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
14
is granted.
15
B.
16
Allegations in Complaint
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) requires a court to dismiss any case in which a litigant seeks
17
leave to proceed in forma pauperis if the court determines that the action is (1) frivolous or
18
malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief
19
against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The
20
determination of whether the litigant has stated a claim is decided under the same standard used in
21
Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). In
22
considering such a motion, a court must take all allegations of material fact as true and construe
23
them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, although “conclusory allegations of law
24
and unwarranted inferences are insufficient to avoid a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.” Cousins v. Lockyer,
25
568 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2009). While “a complaint need not contain detailed factual
26
allegations . . . it must plead ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id.
27
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
28
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.
2
1
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); see also Bell Atl. Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007).
2
“The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than sheer
3
possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S.
4
at 556).
5
The Court notes that “pro se pleadings are liberally construed, particularly where civil rights
6
claims are involved.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A
7
court may dismiss as frivolous, however, claims that are clearly baseless, fanciful, fantastic, or
8
delusional. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992).
9
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that he served actively with the 2nd and 3rd Marine Divisions
for four years. Compl., Docket No. 1, at 4. As a result of heat stroke and exhaustion suffered during
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
a force march in Panama in July 1989, he was hospitalized for four days with a body core
12
temperature of approximately 104 to 106 degrees. Id. Although the medical service records listed
13
the injury as an immediate Medivac, his condition was not recorded medically until approximately
14
four hours later. Id. Since that time, when Plaintiff is stressed or exposed to anxiety, he experiences
15
ear and head aches, blurred eyesight, and memory problems. Id. He also suffers additional
16
psychological and physiological disruptions. For example, a doctor’s visit may trigger abdominal
17
and kidney pain, anxiety, hypertension, clotting, and blurred positive and negative memories from
18
his July 1989 hospitalization and his time on active military service. Id. Plaintiff has been
19
diagnosed with PTSD, hearing loss, abdominal pain, memory loss, and anxiety. Id.
20
Plaintiff brings suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act “Title 2 § 21112(3)” and
21
“Title 5 § 1177 & 1178 Veterans Act.” Id. at 2. He seeks approval of all VA pension and disability
22
benefits, approval of appropriate VA medical examinations and rehabilitation treatments, and
23
approval for retroactive consideration. Id. at 6.
24
C.
25
Americans with Disabilities Act
Plaintiff does not identify why his complaint falls within the ambit of the Americans with
26
Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and the cited code section, Title 2 section 21112(3), does not exist,
27
although it is possible Plaintiff intended to cite to 42 U.S.C. section 12112, which is part of Title I of
28
3
1
the ADA and prohibits discrimination in employment. However, Plaintiff does not allege any facts
2
with respect to employment.
3
As a general matter, Title 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination
4
against individuals with disabilities by state and local governments, not the federal government. See
5
generally 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-65. The federal government is prohibited from discriminating against
6
individuals with disabilities pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. See generally 29 U.S.C. §
7
701 et seq. In particular, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provides that “[n]o otherwise
8
qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of . . . his
9
disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination . . . under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency . . . .” 29
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
U.S.C. § 794.
12
Plaintiff’s ADA claim fails as a matter of law, in that he names federal public entities, not
13
state or local public entities. If he were to assert a claim under the Rehabilitation Act, he has not
14
pled facts establishing he was discriminated against within the meaning of the Act, but rather that he
15
was denied various disability benefits.
16
D.
Veterans Benefits
17
Plaintiff asserts that he has claims under Title 5, sections 1177 and 1178 of the “Veterans
18
Act.” See Compl., Docket No. 1, at 2. It is unclear what law Plaintiff is referencing, as there are
19
numerous federal acts referencing “Veterans,” but no “Veterans Act.” See U.S. House of
20
Representatives, Office of the Law Revision Counsel, Popular Name Tool
21
http://uscode.house.gov/popularnames/popularnames.htm (last visited Nov. 1, 2012). Moreover,
22
Title 38 of the U.S. Code, which covers Veterans’ Benefits, does not have a section 1177 or 1178.
23
Based on the substance of Plaintiff’s complaint, it appears that he wishes to appeal a
24
determination on veterans’ benefits by the VA. See id. at 6. Appeals under the veterans’ laws are
25
subject by statute to exclusive jurisdiction by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, then by the United
26
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and then by the United States Court of Appeals for the
27
Federal Circuit. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7105, 7252, 7292; 77 Am. Jur. 2d Veterans and Veterans’ Laws §
28
4
1
167 (2012). Thus, even if Plaintiff properly pled a claim for relief under Title 38 of the U.S. Code,
2
this Court would not have jurisdiction. Therefore, this cause of action must also be dismissed.
3
For Plaintiff’s benefit, the Court directs his attention to the Handbook for Pro Se Litigants,
4
which is available along with further information for the parties on the Court’s website located at
5
http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants. Mr. Shah may also contact the Legal Help Center, 450
6
Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, Room 2796, Telephone No. (415) 782-9000 extension 8657, for
7
free legal advice regarding his claims.
8
9
II.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. However, his ADA
claim is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice, and his benefits appeal is hereby DISMISSED without
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
prejudice.
12
This order disposes of Docket No. 3
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
Dated: November 6, 2012
17
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?