Shah v. Veterans Administration et al
Filing
12
ORDER Denying 11 Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 9/30/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service).(emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
FERNANDO SHAH,
9
Plaintiff,
10
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
JUDGMENT
v.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
No. C-12-5293 EMC
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, et al.,
12
Defendants.
___________________________________/
(Docket No. 11)
13
14
15
16
Before the Court is Plaintiff Fernando Shah’s letter received on September 10, 2013. The
Court construes Mr. Shah’s letter as a motion for relief from judgment and DENIES the motion.
17
I.
18
BACKGROUND
Mr. Shah filed the instant action alleging that he suffered from a variety of medical
19
conditions as a result of his service in the United States Marine Corps including anxiety, head aches,
20
memory issues, among others. (Complaint, Dkt. 1, at 4). Plaintiff asserted a cause of action under
21
the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) “Title 2 § 21112(e)” and “Title 5 § 1177 & 1178
22
Veterans Act.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff sought approval of all VA pension and disability benefits. (Id. at
23
6).
24
On November 6, 2012, this Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
25
pauperis and then, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The
26
Court first found that the specific ADA code sections upon which Plaintiff relied did not exist.
27
(Dkt. No. 10, at 3). More fundamentally, the Court found that Plaintiff could not state a claim
28
against the federal government under the ADA. (Id. at 4). Finally, the Court found that the
1
complaint, even if construed as attempting to assert a Rehabilitation Act claim, failed to state a claim
2
because Plaintiff had “not pled facts establishing he was discriminated against within the meaning of
3
the Act, but rather that he was denied various disability benefits.” (Id.)
4
With regards to Plaintiff’s claims to veteran benefits, the Court construed Plaintiff’s
5
complaint as attempting to appeal a determination on veterans’ benefits by the VA. (Id.) The Court
6
concluded, however, that it lacked jurisdiction to hear this claim as these appeals were subject to the
7
“exclusive jurisdiction by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, then by the United States Court of
8
Appeals for Veterans Claims, and then by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
9
Circuit.” (Id.)
Ten months later, Plaintiff filed the instant letter. In it, he states that he would like to “re-
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
file” his action with the assistance of the Legal Help Center. (Dkt. No. 11, at 1). He states that he
12
has “not received any benefit, payment, or active medical prognosis although my claim has been
13
consistent with the local, and other rules of law.” (Id.). He also states that his “previous claim [sic]
14
submitted had already been denied by the VBA,1 and was not accorded legally [sic]. Any formal
15
consideration for this claim must be filed inspite [sic] of hardships, or Pro Se status” (Id.) Plaintiff
16
also states that he “wish[es] to amend the Statute to list as Title 38, Section TBA, for casual
17
appointment, and consideration.” (Id.)
18
19
20
II.
DISCUSSION
As an initial matter, the Court construes Plaintiff’s letter as a motion for relief from judgment
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Under Rule 60(b):
21
the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or
proceeding for the following reasons:
22
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
23
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence could
not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule
59(b);
24
25
(3) fraud . . . misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
26
27
1
28
Presumably, Plaintiff is referring to either the Board of Veterans Appeals or the Veterans
Benefits Administration.
2
1
(4) the judgment is void
2
3
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based
on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying
it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
4
(6) any other reason that justified relief.
5
6
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
Plaintiff has not satisfied any of the grounds for Rule 60(b) relief. Rather, he attempts to be
7
reasserting his claim that he is entitled to veterans’ benefits and that the denial by the Veterans
8
Benefits Administration was improper. This is the same underlying matter raised in his complaint.
9
(Compare Dkt. 11, with Dkt. 1, at 6, 9). “It is not the proper function of a Rule 60(b) motion to
reargue matters that have already been litigated.” Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton, 304 F.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Supp. 2d 1174, 1178 (D.Ariz. 2003).
12
Further, as the Court indicated in its prior order, it does not have jurisdiction to review
13
Plaintiff’s claim that the Veterans Benefits Administration has improperly handled or denied his
14
claim. See, e.g., Veterans v. Common Sense v. Shinseki, 678 F.3d 1013, 1016 (9th Cir. 2012) (“We
15
conclude that we lack jurisdiction to afford relief [regarding claims of delayed processing of
16
veterans benefits] because Congress, in its discretion, has elected to place judicial review of claims
17
related to the provision of veterans’ benefits beyond our reach and within the exclusive purview of
18
the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the Court of Appeals for the Federal
19
Circuit.”).
20
Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
21
This order disposes of Docket No. 11.
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
Dated: September 30, 2013
26
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
27
28
3
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?