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)
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?