Ricks-Bey v. Department of Veterans Affairs et al

Filing 7

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, by Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 1/19/2016. (agarc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 15-cv-02842-GPG
MICHAEL TODD RICKS-BEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, and
REUBEN MESTAS, Regional Office Director,
Defendants.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff, Michael Todd Ricks-Bey, is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado
Department of Corrections. Mr. Ricks-Bey has filed pro se a Prisoner Complaint (ECF
No. 1). The court must construe the Prisoner Complaint liberally because Mr. Ricks-Bey
is not represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972);
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the court should not be
an advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. Mr. Ricks-Bey will be
ordered to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
Mr. Ricks-Bey does not provide a short and plain statement of his claims that
demonstrate he is entitled to relief in this action as required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. Nevertheless, it is apparent he is seeking a declaratory judgment that
he is entitled to compensation for service-connected disabilities from the United States
Department of Veterans Affairs. It also appears that Mr. Ricks-Bey previously filed an

administrative claim for disability benefits that was denied.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3), the court must dismiss an action if the court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They
possess only that power authorized by Constitution and
statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree. It is
to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited
jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests
upon the party asserting jurisdiction.
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted).
The issue of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised sua sponte by the court at any time
during the course of the proceedings. See McAlester v. United Air Lines, Inc., 851 F.2d
1249, 1252 (10th Cir. 1988).
The relevant federal statutes provide a multi-tiered framework for adjudicating
claims involving veterans benefits. First,
[t]he Secretary [of Veterans Affairs] shall decide all questions
of law and fact necessary to a decision by the Secretary under
a law that affects the provision of benefits by the Secretary to
veterans or the dependents or survivors of veterans. Subject
to subsection (b), the decision of the Secretary as to any such
question shall be final and conclusive and may not be
reviewed by any other official or by any court, whether by an
action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise.
38 U.S.C. § 511(a). If the veteran’s claim is denied, the veteran may appeal to the Board
of Veterans’ Appeals pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7104. See Burkins v. United States, 112
F.3d 444, 447 (10th Cir. 1997). A veteran who seeks judicial review then may proceed to
the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7225 and then to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292. See
2

id. Under this statutory scheme, a federal district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over a claim by a veteran for disability benefits or for judicial review of an administrative
decision in an individual case. See Weaver v. United States, 98 F.3d 518, 519 (10th Cir.
1996); see also Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki, 678 F.3d 1013, 1020 (9th Cir.
2012) (“In cases involving benefits owed to veterans, Congress has created a scheme
conferring exclusive jurisdiction over claims affecting veterans’ benefits to some federal
courts, while denying all other federal courts any jurisdiction over such claims.”)
For these reasons Mr. Ricks-Bey will be ordered to show cause why this action
should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days form the date of this order, Mr.
Ricks-Bey show cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that if Mr. Ricks-Bey fails to show good cause as directed
within the time allowed the action will be dismissed without further notice.
DATED January 19, 2016, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

Gordon P. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge

3