Strong v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge William M Nickerson on 11/17/11. (c/m 11/17/11 jnls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

THOMAS B. STRONG
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN’S
AFFAIRS et al.
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Civil Action No. WMN-11-833

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Thomas Strong, proceeding pro se, filed this
action on March 30, 2011.

Without providing any additional

detail, he alleged that the Department of Veteran’s Affairs
(DVA) and two of its employees, Defendants Ronald Henke and Phil
Louden, conspired with Mrs. Catina Gilmore-Jones to commit
fraud, identity theft, discrimination against the disabled,
political discrimination, and invasion of privacy.

Unable to

parse the intended claims, the Court requested that Plaintiff
supplement his Complaint.

On April 12, 2011, Plaintiff filed a

supplemental complaint which included allegations that in 1972,
the Army gave him a less than honorable discharge on the ground
that he had self-inflicted an injury.

He also references a

series of employment problems he experienced in the 1980s and
1990s that he attributes to political motivations and because of
his physical and mental disabilities.

He also repeats his

allegation of identity theft but with no additional factual
support.1
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss or for summary
judgment, ECF No. 14, in which they provide a lengthy narrative
of Plaintiff’s military history and interactions with the DVA.
They note first that Plaintiff received an honorable discharge
and that his records contain no reference to any self-imposed
injury.

They also outline the decades-long dispute in which

Plaintiff has engaged the DVA regarding his disability status.
Due to various physical and mental conditions, Plaintiff’s
disability rating was gradually increased over the years until
July 2009 when the DVA determined that his schizophrenia was
100% disabling.
In their motion, Defendants contend that the Complaint,
even as supplemented, fails to state a valid claim.

To the

extent Plaintiff is challenging his discharge records, his
claims are not only unsupported by the facts (i.e., the records
show that he was honorably discharged), but are beyond
jurisdiction of this Court.

the

See 10 U.S.C. § 1558 (outlining the

steps that must be taken before a challenge to military records
are subject to judicial review).

As to any challenge that

1

The undersigned notes that many of the allegations raised in
this action were also raised in previous actions filed in this
Court. Strong v. Dept. of the Navy, Civil No. RDB-08-2440;
Strong v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, Civil No. RDB-09-3272.
2

Plaintiff might intend regarding his disability ratings, this
Court is also without jurisdiction to review those claims.
38 U.S.C. § 511.

See

Plaintiff’s remaining allegations are also

clearly related to or derived from disputes regarding
Plaintiff’s veteran’s benefits and thus, are similarly barred by
38 U.S.C. § 511.
Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion in
which he simply asks for a “show cause” hearing at which he
could present witnesses in support of his claims.

ECF No. 18.

As Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim over which this
Court has jurisdiction, however, any evidentiary hearing would
be without purpose.

Accordingly, the Court is going to grant

Defendants’ motion.

A separate order consistent with this

memorandum will be issued.
/s/
__________________________________
William M. Nickerson
Senior United States District Judge

DATED: November 17, 2011.

3