HILL v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS et al

Filing 5

ORDER GRANTING 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; DENYING 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and TRO; and DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 1 Motion for Writ of Mandamus. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 1/30/2013. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
JEFFREY HILL,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-CV-14 (MTT)

ORDER
Before the Court is the pro se Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Doc. 1),
“Emergency Temporary Restraining Order and Permanate [sic] Injunction”1 (Doc. 2),
and Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis2 (Doc. 3).
Taken together, these filings contest the Department’s apparent classification of
the Plaintiff as a “fugitive felon,” which, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5313B, renders him
ineligible for benefits to which he is otherwise entitled. Although the Plaintiff’s
allegations are not entirely comprehensible, he essentially contends this classification
was in error. He appears to suggest the Department misidentified him or based its
decision on a misdemeanor that should not have triggered the statute. It is unclear
whether the Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies.

1
Although the motion is styled as one seeking injunctive relief, the Plaintiff also asks for
monetary damages in the form of $250,000.
2

The Plaintiff’s IFP motion is GRANTED solely for the purpose of dismissing his remaining
motions. 

However, these are not issues for this Court. Pursuant to the Veterans Judicial
Review Act, Pub. L. No. 100-687, 102 Stat. 4105 (1988), the United States Court of
Veterans Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction to review the Department’s decisions
regarding veterans’ benefits. See Hall v. U.S. Dept. Veterans’ Affairs, 85 F.3d 532, 534
(11th Cir. 1996) (citing 38 U.S.C. §§ 7251, 7252(a), 7266(a)). “[U]nder the statutory
scheme, judicial review of a particular application of the law made by the [Department]
with respect to a veteran's entitlement to benefits may be had only by appealing to the
Board of Veterans’ Appeals, then to the Court of Veterans Appeals, the Federal Circuit
Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.” Id. See also Slater v. United States, 175
Fed. Appx. 300, 305 n.2 (11th Cir. 2006) (“We have no jurisdiction over any decision of
law or fact necessary to the provision of benefits by the [Department] to veterans”).
Here, the Plaintiff complains about the denial of veterans benefits based on the
Department’s application of the “fugitive felon” statute. Therefore, he may only seek
judicial review of this decision in the United States Court of Veterans Appeals. This
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to resolve the Plaintiff’s concerns and cannot
address his requested remedies.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s remaining motions are DENIED, and this action is
DISMISSED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED, this 30th day of January, 2013.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2