Dello v. United States
Filing
4
ORDER granting 3 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Clerk of Court shall file redacted Complaint. Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend by 12/3/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 11/5/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
***
10
CHRISTY J. DELLO,
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
16
Plaintiff Christy Dello is proceeding in this action pro se and has requested authority pursuant
17
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 3. Plaintiff also submitted a redacted
18
Complaint on September 15, 2014.1 Id. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule
19
IB 1-9.
20
I.
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
UNITED STATES,
14
Defendant(s).
2:14-cv-01375-RCJ-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 3)
In Forma Pauperis Application
21
Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing an inability to prepay fees
22
and costs or give security for them. Docket No. 3. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma
23
pauperis will be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The court will now review Plaintiff’s
24
Complaint.
25
...
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff’s original application to proceed in forma pauperis, submitted on August 25, 2014
(Docket No. 1) was sealed due to its noncompliance with the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a).
Docket No. 2. Plaintiff submitted a redacted Complaint and application on September 15, 2014.
Docket No. 3.
1
II.
Screening the Complaint
2
Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must additionally screen a
3
complaint pursuant to § 1915.2 Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the action
4
is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
5
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). When
6
a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915(a), the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the
7
complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the
8
complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d
9
1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).
10
In addition, the Court has a duty to ensure that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the
11
dispute before it. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction
12
and possess only that power authorized by the Constitution and statute. See Kokkonen v. Guardian
13
Life Ins. Co. Of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Plaintiff has not alleged federal jurisdiction exists
14
in this case. Plaintiff does not explicitly list the law(s) under which he brings his claims, but the
15
allegations relate to the actions of the United States Department of Veteran Affairs.
16
Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.101, once a claim has been denied by the local VA office, a
17
claimant may appeal the decision to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“BVA”). The BVA has
18
jurisdiction to review benefit claims determinations made by local Veterans’ Affairs (“VA”) offices
19
and issue decisions on appeals. 38 U.S.C. § 7104. If the BVA denies the claim, a claimant has the
20
option of doing one of the following:
21
1.
22
23
Reopen the claim with the local VA office if new and material evidence can be
presented with respect to the claim that was denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5108.
2.
24
File a motion for reconsideration asking the BVA to review the case again because
there was a clear and unmistakable error in the decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7103.
25
26
27
28
2
Although § 1915 at times refers to prisoners, the Ninth Circuit has made clear that the
screening provisions are not limited to cases initiated by prisoners. See, e.g., Lopez v. Smith, 203
F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis
complaints, not just those filed by prisoners”).
-2-
1
3.
File an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The U.S. Court
2
of Appeals for Veterans Claims shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review decisions
3
of the BVA. 38 U.S.C. § 7252.
4
See also Docket 3-3, at 102-103 (listing petitioner’s rights to appeal a decision by the BVA).
5
Plaintiff asserts in the redacted Complaint that the United States refused to comply with a
6
joint remand order, violating his constitutional rights. Docket No. 3-1, at 2. Plaintiff attached
7
numerous documents, including the BVA’s denial of Plaintiff’s appeal on April 7, 2014. Docket No.
8
3-3, at 95-103. Thus, this Court does not have jurisdiction over the matter. Plaintiff’s claims have
9
been denied by the local VA office, and Plaintiff has already appealed his claim to the BVA.
10
Because Plaintiff’s claim was denied by the BVA, Plaintiff may only bring an action before the U.S.
11
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, not the federal district court. When a party files “a case
12
laying venue in the wrong division or district[, the court] shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of
13
justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C.
14
§ 1406(a). Therefore, Dello’s reimbursement claim will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, with
15
leave to amend.
16
17
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the redacted Complaint with leave to amend.
III.
Conclusion
18
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
19
1.
20
21
Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall not be
required to pay the filing fee of four hundred dollars ($400.00).
2.
Plaintiff is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of
22
prepayment of any additional fees or costs or the giving of a security therefor. This
23
Order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis shall not extend to the issuance
24
of subpoenas at government expense.
25
3.
The Clerk of the Court shall file the redacted Complaint.
26
4.
The Complaint is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, with leave to
27
28
amend. Plaintiff will have until December 3, 2014 to file an Amended Complaint,
-3-
1
if he believes he can correct the noted deficiencies. If Plaintiff chooses to amend the
2
complaint, Plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading (i.e.,
3
his original Complaint) in order to make the Amended Complaint complete. This is
4
because, as a general rule, an Amended Complaint supersedes the original
5
Complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Local Rule 15-1
6
requires that an Amended Complaint be complete in itself without reference to any
7
prior pleading. Once a plaintiff files an Amended Complaint, the original Complaint
8
no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an Amended Complaint, as
9
in an original Complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be
10
sufficiently alleged.
11
recommended dismissal of this case without prejudice.
12
Failure to comply with this Order will result in the
Dated: November 5, 2014
13
14
15
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
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?