Fisher v. The United States Treasury Department et al
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - Fisher's claim, which seeks recovery of overpaid disability benefits, is directly related to an administrative decision regarding his veterans' benefits. The exclusive avenue for redress of veterans' be nefits determinations is an appeal to the Court of Veterans Appeals and from there to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Fisher's due process claim plainly concerns actions taken by the VA to reduce or withhold benefits and to recover overpayments in his particular case. Based on the foregoing, the court ORDERS as follows: 1. The 1 Complaint filed by Terrell Fisher is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 2. The dismissal SHALL NOT count as a "strike" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (sra4)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 26, 2024
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
TERRELL FISHER,
TDCJ #2147651,
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES TREASURY
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-23-2545
§
§
Defendants.
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The
plaintiff,
Terrell
Fisher
(TDCJ
led
#2147651),
a
handwritten pleading entitled "Summary of Judgment" that has been
construed as a Compla
(Docket Entry No. 1) against the United
States Treasury Department (the "Treasury Department") and the
United States Department of Veterans Affairs (the "VA").
i
has
The court
an Order for More Definite (Docket Entry No. 12) and Fisher
led a response ("Plaintiff's MOS") (Docket Entry No. 13),
which provides additional details about
is a prisoner who proceeds
s claims.
Because Fisher
forma pauperis, the court is required
to scrutinize the pleadings and dismiss the case if it determines
that the action is "
on which rel
ous or malicious;" "fails to state a
f may be granted;" or "seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief."
§ 1915(e)(2) (B).
concludes
that
explained below.
28 U.S.C.
After considering all of the pleadings, the court
this case
must
be
dismissed for
the
reasons
I:.
Background
Fisher is presently incarcerated by the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division ("TDCJ u ) at
the Pack Unit in Navasota. 1
Public records reflect that Fisher is
currently serving a ten-year prison sentence that he received in
2017,
for the offense of indecency with a child by contact. 2
Fisher previously received a seven-year sentence for failure to
ter as a sex offender in 2003, and a three-year sentence for
indecency with a child
1990.3
Fisher is a veteran of the United States Army. 4
that he began receiving disability bene
Fisher states
s from the VA
2021,
following a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia and PTSD. 5
He
reportedly received checks that were issued by the VA from the
Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 5.
For purposes of
identification, all page numbers reference the pagination imprinted
on
docket entry by the court's Electronic Case Filing ("ECF")
system.
1
Texas
Department
of
Criminal
Justice
Offender
Information, available at: https://inmate.tdcj.texas.gov (last
vis
March 25, 2024).
Plaintiff's MDS,
Question 13).
4
Docket Entry No.
13,
p. 4
(Response to
at 1 (Response to Questions 3 (a) and 3 (b) l.
Fisher's
response to Question 3 in the Order for More Definite Statement
appear to be out of order. See Order for More Definite Statement,
Docket Entry No. 12, p. 2.
5
-2-
Treasury Department in the amount of $3,621.04 each month. 6
In January 2023, Fisher learned that he had received an
overpayment of benefits and that the VA was taking $70.00 a month
from his inmate trust fund account to recover the overpaid amount.7
Fisher estimates that he owes $14,000.00 to the VA for overpayment
of veterans' benefits.8
Although his handwriting is difficult to
decipher, Fisher appears to allege that the VA has wrongfully taken
funds from his inmate trust fund account and returned them to the
Treasury Department without giving him notice and an opportunity to
request
a
waiver
regulations.9
of
overpayment
in
violation
of
its
own
He seeks recovery of the overpayments collected by
the VA in violation of the right to due process.10
Plaintiff's MDS, Docket Entry No. 13, p. 1 (Response to
Questions 3(c) and 3(d)).
6
7
Id. at 1 (Response to Questions 4(a) and 4(e)).
Id. at 2 (Response to Question 5(b)). When a veteran is
incarcerated for a felony conviction, the veteran "shall not be
paid" the full amount of awarded compensation benefits "for the
period beginning on the sixty-first day of such incarceration and
ending on the day such incarceration ends." 38 U.S.C. § 5313(a)(1).
Regulations that govern the reduction of veterans' benefits when
they have been incarcerated for a felony conviction are found in 38
CFR § 3.665.
8
Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 1-4.
Because the
plaintiff represents himself, all of his pleadings have been
reviewed under a less stringent standard than those drafted by
lawyers.
See Haines v. Kerner, 92 S. Ct. 594, 596 ( 1972)(per
curiam).
9
complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 1-4; Plaintiff's MDS,
Docket Entry No. 13, p. 4 (Response to Question 10).
10
-3-
:n:.
Discussion
Federal courts are "courts of limited jurisdiction, having
'only the authority endowed by the Constitution and that conferred
by Congress.'
11
Halmekangas v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 603
F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). Article III of
the Constitution limits federal courts' jurisdiction to certain
"Cases" and "Controversies."
Clapper v. Amnesty Int' l USA, 133
S. Ct.
The existence of subject matter
1138,
1146
(2013).
ion may be challenged at any stage in the litigation and
juri
Nguyen
may be raised by the district court on its own motion.
v. District Director, Bureau of Immigration, 400 F.3d 255, 260 (5th
Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). "If the court determines at any
time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction,
the court must
dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h) (3).
Fisher's claim, which seeks recovery of overpaid disability
benefits,
is
directly
regarding his veterans'
related
to
benefits.
an
administrative
sions about
decision
veterans'
benefits are not reviewable in a federal district court.
38
U.S.C. § 511 (a).11 "In 1988, Congress passed the Veterans' Judicial
11This
provision states limits judicial review as follows:
The Secretary [of the Department 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 or the
dependents or survivors of veterans. Subject to
(continued... )
-4-
Review Act
( "VJRA"), []
which clearly announced the intent of
Congress to preclude review of benefits determinations in federal
district courts."
Zuspann v. Brown, 60 F.3d 1156, 1158 (5th Cir.
1995) (citing 38 U.S.C. § 7251 (1991));
Hall v. United States
Department of Veterans' Affairs, 85 F.3d 532, 534 (11th Cir. 1996);
see also Larrabee v. Derwinski, 968 F.2d 1497, 1499-1501 (2d Cir.
1992)
(detailing legislative history in the area of veterans'
benefits
and
the
determinations).
preclusion
of
judicial
review
of
benefits
The exclusive avenue for redress of veterans'
benefits determinations is an appeal to the Court of Veterans
Appeals and from there to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit.
Zuspann, 60 F.3d at 1158-59; see also,
�, Bell v. Veterans Administration, 946 F. Supp. 479, 480 (W.D.
Tex. 1996) (outlining the authority to review determinations by the
Secretary of Veterans Af
rs and issues related to benefits, over
which a federal district court lacks jurisdiction).
Fisher's due process claim plainly concerns actions taken by
the VA to reduce or withhold benefits and to recover overpayments
in his particular case.
"Since the enactment of the VJRA, federal
continued)
subsection (b), the decision of the Secretary as to any
such question shall be final and conclusive and may not
be
ewed by any other official or by any court,
whether by an action in the nature of mandamus or
otherwise.
11 ( • ••
38 U.S.C. § 511 (a).
-5-
courts have refused to entertain const
ional claims if they are
based on the VA's actions in a particular case." Zuspann, 60 F.3d
at 1159 (citations omitted).
As a result, Fisher's Complaint must
be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
id.; Hall, 85 F.3d at
534-35 (dismissing an inmate's claim for overpayment of benefits
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction).
III.
Conc1usion and Order
Based on the foregoing, the court ORDERS as follows:
1.
The Complaint filed by Terrell Fisher (Docket
Entry No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice
for lack of subject matter j
sdiction.
2.
The dismissal shall not count as a "strike"
for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
The C1erk is directed to provide a copy of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to the p1aintiff.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 26th day of March, 2024.
LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-6-
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?