Sterling v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs et al
Memorandum Opinion and Order. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is granted, and the Complaint 1 is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Plaintiff's Motion for Electronic Filing Privileges 3 and Motion to Compel Discovery 4 are denied as moot. Further, this Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Jack Zouhary on 12/11/2014. (D,L)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Roy Todd Sterling,
Case No. 3:14 CV 2043
-vsJUDGE JACK ZOUHARY
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs,
Pro se Plaintiff Roy Todd Sterling filed a Complaint (Doc. 1) against Defendants U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs (the “VA”) and the Office of the United States Attorney General.
Plaintiff appears to be unsatisfied with the VA’s processing of his service-connected disability
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365
(1982) (per curiam), a district court is required to dismiss an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) if it
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted when it lacks “plausibility in the complaint.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 564 (2007). A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78. Viewed in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, a complaint’s factual allegations must raise a right to relief above the
speculative level. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. A plaintiff is not required to include detailed factual
allegations, but must provide more than “an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Even construing the Complaint liberally in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, it does not
contain allegations reasonably suggesting he might have a valid federal claim against Defendants.
Under the Veteran Judicial Review Act of 1988, the issues Plaintiff raises may only be adjudicated
by the appropriate Veterans Administration administrative bodies, the Court of Veterans Appeals, and
the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See Beamon v. Brown, 125 F.3d 965, 967 (6th Cir.
1997). Because the allegations do not support jurisdiction in this Court, the case must be dismissed.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is granted, and the Complaint (Doc.
1) is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Plaintiff’s Motion for Electronic Filing Privileges (Doc.
3) and Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 4) are denied as moot. Further, this Court certifies,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Jack Zouhary
U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE
December 11, 2014
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?