LEWIS v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM ORDER Signed by JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER on 9/30/2013. For the reasons stated, the court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action and the complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.(Daniel, J)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA LLOYD LEWIS, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT TREASURY, VETERANS OF THE Defendants. 1:11-cv-00870 MEMORANDUM ORDER THOMAS D. SCHROEDER, District Judge. Before the court is the motion of the Defendants, the United States Departments of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) and the Treasury, to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff Lloyd responded (Docs. (Doc. 13). Lewis 10, (“Lewis”), 11), and proceeding Defendants have pro filed se, a has reply The court conducted a hearing on September 30, 2013. Counsel for the Government was present in the courtroom, and Plaintiff Lewis appeared by telephone. For the reasons set forth below, the court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction dismissed. over the action. Therefore, the case will be I. BACKGROUND Lewis filed this action seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the VA and Treasury 1 in order to prevent them from taking further offsets from Social Security benefits to pay a debt he allegedly owes. 8–1 ¶ 4.) (Doc. The VA contends that Lewis owes $4,120.50 as the result of an overpayment of benefits by the VA. Lewis, he income and misunderstood therefore the requirements underreported his resulting in his receipt of extra benefits. Lewis his alleges he received a letter for According to reporting income to the extra VA, (Doc. 3 ¶ 4.) from the VA’s Debt Management Center on or about August 4, 2008, stating that he had been paid excess benefits and that his benefits would be withheld to recoup the debt. Doc 11–1 at 1.) Social Security (Doc. 11 ¶ 8; He claims he never received any further letters from the VA, even though he updated his address in the VA’s database. (Doc. 11 ¶ 8.) Over a year later, Lewis filed a request for a waiver of indebtedness, which was received by the VA on January 4, 2010. (Doc. 11-1 at 2.) On January 26, 2010, the VA granted Lewis’ waiver request in full based on hardship and waived the debt, 1 During the hearing, Lewis reiterated his statement in his declaration (Doc. 12 ¶ 1) that he filed his complaint against the Department of the Treasury in error and now withdraws it. At the hearing, moreover, counsel for the Government acknowledged that upon the filing of this lawsuit the Department of the Treasury ceased any efforts to offset Lewis’ Social Security benefits to satisfy the alleged debt. 2 which was reported to be $3,880.00. (Doc. 2–2.) 2 Lewis claims he never received the decision because it was sent to the wrong address and, as a result, request until May 2011. has claimed Lewis that asserts he granted in full. did not learn (Doc. 2 at 2.) he owes $4,120.50 is puzzled by result of his Since that time, the VA in that the outstanding because his debt, and waiver was To the extent the VA has made an error, he claims, he was denied the right to appeal it because he was never given notice and seeks to enjoin the VA from offsetting his outstanding debt from his Social Security benefits. The VA now moves to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. (Doc. 7.) It contends the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action on the ground that Lewis failed to exhaust his administrative appealing an adverse decision by the VA. remedies by not In addition, the VA moves to dismiss on the grounds of insufficiency of service of process and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. II. ANALYSIS Insofar as Lewis has withdrawn any claim against the Department of the Treasury, his sole remaining claim is what in substance amounts to a challenge of the VA’s determination that 2 Counsel for the Government was unable to explain why the waiver decision, which purported to grant Lewis’ request for a waiver in full, did not cover the current outstanding debt, nor has the Government submitted any documents explaining this discrepancy. 3 he still owes $4,120.50 in overpaid benefits. However, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 511, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over actions challenging the VA’s determination of benefits. See Butler v. United States, 702 F.3d 749, 754 (4th Cir. 2012) (“[Section] 511 precludes adjudicating veterans' jurisdiction claims requires over the ‘cases district where court to determine whether the VA acted properly in handling a veteran's request affect for benefits’ and ‘also such cases.’” (quoting to those Veterans decisions for that Sense Common may v. Shinseki, 678 F.3d 1013, 1025 (9th Cir. 2012))). Instead, there is a separate review apparatus for such claims. See Thomas v. Principi, 394 F.3d 970, 973-74 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ("Other provisions of the [Veterans’ Judicial Review Act] demarcate the path to appellate review of secretarial benefits decisions: claimants may first appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals, 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a), then to the Court of Appeals for Veterans' Claims, id. § 7252(a), to the Federal Circuit, id. § 7292(c), and ultimately to the Supreme Court, id."); see also Shinseki, 678 F.3d at 1016–17. This court’s authority to determine disputes is limited by the Constitution and laws passed by Congress. §§ 1331, 1332. Where the court lacks See 28 U.S.C. subject jurisdiction, it is powerless to entertain an action. matter Because a determination of the merits of Lewis’ claim would require this 4 court to conclude that the VA has incorrectly determined the amount of overpayment that Treasury is required to offset, this court lacks jurisdiction, and the case must be dismissed. The dismissal will be without prejudice to Lewis’ rights to seek resolution of his claims in the proper forum. See S. Walk at Broadlands at Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. OpenBand Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013). III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, the court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. /s/ Thomas D. Schroeder United States District Judge September 30, 2013 5

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?