MAGNER v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 8/3/2015. (bdk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JOSEPH P. MAGNER,

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Plaintiff,
Civil Action
No. 14-2873 (JBS/AMD)

v.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendant.
SIMANDLE, Chief Judge:
In this action, pro se Plaintiff Joseph P. Magner, who is
currently incarcerated at FCI Fort Dix, asks this Court to
review the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (“VA”) decision to
reduce his monthly compensation benefits due to his
incarceration, and to apply a portion of his monthly benefits to
his outstanding pension indebtedness. Plaintiff states that the
reduced amount of $41.60 does not cover his total monthly
expenses of $123.00 and asks this Court to direct the Department
of Veterans Affairs to “grant him relief.” Because Plaintiff
seeks to bring this action in forma pauperis, the Court has an
obligation to screen the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
The Court finds as follows:
1.

Because Plaintiff’s application affidavit states that

he is indigent, the Court will, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915,

permit the Complaint to be filed without prepayment of fees, and
will direct the Clerk of Court to file the Complaint.
2.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) requires the Court to review

Plaintiff’s Complaint and dismiss sua sponte any claim that is
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. A complaint is frivolous if, evaluated
objectively, it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in
fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)
(interpreting the predecessor of § 1915(e)(2), the former §
1915(d)); Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1086–87 (3d
Cir. 1995). In determining the sufficiency of a pro se
complaint, the Court must construe it liberally in favor of the
plaintiff. United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 (3d Cir. 1992).
3.

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint,1 the Court finds

that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to conform to Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a), and because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to
review benefits determinations made by the VA. Plaintiff’s
Complaint must be dismissed.
4.

Rule 8(a)(1) requires a complaint to contain “a short

and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction,
unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no

1

Plaintiff’s Complaint is styled as a “Motion Requesting
Response and Relief.” [Docket Item 1.]
2

new jurisdictional support.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a)(1). The
Court may dismiss a complaint that lacks such a statement.
Jackson v. Sec’y Pa. Dept. of Corr., 438 Fed. Appx. 74, 75 (3d
Cir. 2011) (affirming district court’s dismissal of pro se
plaintiff’s complaint in part because it lacked a short and
plain statement of the court’s jurisdictional grounds). Because
Plaintiff Magner has stated no grounds for the court’s
jurisdiction, the Complaint must be dismissed for failure to
comply with Rule 8(a)(1). Rhett v. New Jersey State Superior
Court, 260 Fed. App’x 513, 515 (3d Cir. 2008) (affirming
district court’s dismissal of pro se litigant’s complaint
because it lacked a short and plain statement of either the
grounds for jurisdiction or the substantive claims for relief);
Schultz v. Cally, 528 F.2d 470, 474 (3d Cir. 1975) (“It is
hornbook law that the jurisdiction of the federal court must
appear in the plaintiff’s statement of his claim.”); Liggon v.
Simmons Pet Food, 2015 WL 1189561, at *2 (D.N.J. Mar. 13, 2015)
(dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint in part because he
failed to state any grounds for jurisdiction).
5.

Plaintiff’s Complaint also requires dismissal under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) because this Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over his claim. Plaintiff wishes to challenge the
reduction of his veterans compensation benefits. However,
federal judicial review of VA decisions is severely limited by
3

the Veterans Judicial Review Act of 1988 (“VJRA”). Pub.L. No.
100–687, Tit. III, 102 Stat. 4105, 4113–4122 (codified in
various sections of Title 38 of the United States Code). The
VJRA established an exclusive, multi-tiered judicial process for
reviewing veterans’ benefits claims so that “timely, consistent,
and fair decisions” could be made “in a truly independent court
which will not be burdened by other cases having nothing to do
with veterans.” 134 Cong. Rec. H9258 (daily ed. Oct. 3, 1988)
(statement of Rep. Solomon); Bates v. Nicholson, 398 F.3d 1355,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005). To that end, 38 U.S.C. § 511(a) states
that the 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 . .
. . 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) (emphasis added).2 Section 511(a) specifically
“precludes judicial review in Article III courts of VA decisions

2

Section 511(b) contains four exceptions to § 511(a)’s bar to
judicial review, none of which apply here to allow this Court to
review Plaintiff’s claim. Three exceptions deal with narrow
subject matters: the review of VA rules and regulations in the
Federal Circuit; district court review of claims related to
federally-provided insurance; and suits under chapter 37 of
Title 38 relating to housing and small business loans. 38 U.S.C.
§ 511(b)(1)-(3); id. §§ 502, 1975, 1984, & ch. 37. The final
exception permits review in the Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims. 38 U.S.C. § 511(b)(4); id. ch. 72.
4

affecting the provision of veterans’ benefits.” Price v. United
States, 228 F.3d 420, 421 (D.C. Cir. 2000); see also Zuspann v.
Brown, 60 F.3d 1156, 1158 (5th Cir. 1995) (noting that Congress
“clearly announced [its] intent [] to preclude review of
benefits determinations in federal district courts” under the
VJRA).
6.

The VJRA creates an exclusive review procedure by

which veterans may resolve their disagreements with the
Department of Veterans Affairs. Zuspann, 60 F.3d at 1158. To
appeal a benefits determination, a veteran must first seek
review within the agency by filing a “notice of disagreement”
with the agency of original jurisdiction. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104(a)
and 7105(a); Fleming v. Veterans Admin. Med. Ctrs., 348 Fed.
App’x 737, 738 (3d Cir. 2009). The veteran may then file a
formal appeal of the agency decision with the Board of Veterans’
Appeals. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(d)(3). An appeal of the Board’s
decision must be filed in the Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims, which has “exclusive jurisdiction to review” the Board’s
decisions. 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a); Fleming, 348 Fed. App’x at 738;
Zuspann, 60 F.3d at 1159. And finally, any further appeal must
be brought in the Federal Circuit, which has exclusive appellate
jurisdiction over the decisions of the Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims. 38 U.S.C. § 7292; Zuspann, 60 F.3d at 1159.

5

7.

In short, “the VJRA explicitly granted comprehensive

and exclusive jurisdiction to the [Court of Veterans Appeals]
and the Federal Circuit over claims seeking review of VA
decisions that relate to benefits decisions under § 511(a).”
Beamon v. Brown, 125 F.3d 965, 971 (6th Cir. 1997). Congress
provided this specialized review process specifically because
they believed that “district courts lacked the necessary
expertise” to adjudicate such matters. Bates, 398 F.3d at 1364.
8.

Plaintiff asks this Court to “issue an order directing

that the Department of Veterans Affairs, Respondent, respond and
grant him relief” by increasing his monthly compensation
benefits. (Compl. at 3.) As Plaintiff clearly seeks review of a
“decision by the Secretary [of Veterans Affairs]” that “affects
the provision of benefits,” it is plain that this Court has no
jurisdiction to consider his claim. 38 U.S.C. § 511(a). See,
e.g., Fleming, 348 Fed. App’x at 739 (holding that district
court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over a claim
challenging a medical diagnosis by the VA); Price, 228 F.3d 420,
(D.C. Cir. 2000) (holding that district court lacked
jurisdiction over a claim that VA failed to reimburse plaintiff
for medical expenses because “[t]exclusive avenue for redress of
veterans' benefits determinations is appeal to the Court of
Veterans Appeals and from there to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit.”); Harris v. Dep’t of Veterans
6

Affairs, Civ. No. 05-492, 2006 WL 827830, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Mar.
30, 2006) (finding that VJRA deprived district court of
jurisdiction over veteran’s claims against the VA); MacKay v.
Veterans Admin., Civ. No. 03-6089, 2004 WL 1774620, at *3 (E.D.
Pa. Aug. 5, 2004) (holding that district court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction over veteran’s complaint seeking review of
VA benefits decision because the Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims “has exclusive jurisdiction of appeals of VA
determinations of benefit claims.”).
7. In sum, and for all of the foregoing reasons,
Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to comply
with Rule 8(a)(1) and lack of subject matter jurisdiction under
Rule 12(b)(1). As the Court finds no prospect that Plaintiff can
cure the jurisdictional defect, Plaintiff’s Complaint will be
dismissed with prejudice. The Court expresses no view about the
merits of Plaintiff’s appeal. Nothing herein precludes Plaintiff
from pursuing any available administrative review under the
VJRA. The accompanying Order will be entered.

August 3, 2015
Date

s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge

7