Schuett v. Veterans Administration

Filing 7

OPINION AND ORDER granting 5 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge William K. Sessions III on 7/21/2015. (law)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
CLIFFORD EARL SCHUETT,
Plaintiff,
v.
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 2:14-cv-216

OPINION AND ORDER
(Doc. 5)
Plaintiff Clifford Earl Schuett, proceeding pro se,
seeks to file a civil complaint against the United States
Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) alleging that the VA
failed to properly transfer his veterans’ benefits after he
moved to Nevada. Defendant VA moves to dismiss pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Doc.
6.)

Schuett did not file a response.

For the reasons set

forth below, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) is
GRANTED, and the case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Factual Background and Procedural History
Schuett is currently incarcerated in the state of
Nevada (Doc. 4 at 3.)

Schuett alleges that until November

2013, he lived in Vermont and received veterans’ benefits
from the VA.

In November 2013, he moved to Nevada.

alleges that after he moved, he stopped receiving his

Schuett

benefits, despite sending five letters to the VA in Vermont
and appearing in person at the Nevada VA office.

Id. at 4.

As relief, Schuett seeks monetary damages compensating him
for the benefits he did not receive.

Id. at 3.

Defendant VA moves to dismiss, arguing that the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Schuett’s claims and
that he has not established a waiver of sovereign immunity
necessary to bring suit against a federal government agency.
(Doc. 5 at 3.)

Defendant further argues that the Complaint

fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted,
because Schuett has not exhausted his administrative
remedies and cannot establish that he is entitled to relief
in this Court.

Id. at 7.
Standard of Review

Defendant seeks dismissal of the Complaint under Fed.
R. C. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

Filings by self-represented

parties are "to be liberally construed, and a pro se
complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers."

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)

(internal quotations marks and citations omitted).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires the
plaintiff to provide "a short plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."
Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

Fed. R.

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule

12(b)(6), the court reviews the face of the plaintiff's
complaint and accepts all factual allegations as true and
draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.
Mills v. Polar Molecular Corp., 12 F.3d 1170, 1174 (2d Cir.
1993).

"[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual

matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.'"

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

"The plausibility standard is not

akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more
than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully."

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Even a facially-sufficient complaint may be properly
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule
12(b)(1) "when the district court lacks the statutory or
constitutional power to adjudicate it."
States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000).

Makarova v. United
The party

asserting subject matter jurisdiction bears the burden of
proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the court
has jurisdiction.

Id.

Finally, a district court may dismiss a case filed in

forma pauperis where it determines that the complaint “is
frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.”

28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B).
Discussion
Section 511(a) of Title 38 entrusts the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs with all decision-making authority over
matters involving veterans’ benefits, providing that those
determinations, “shall be final and conclusive and may not
be reviewed by any other official or by any court.”
U.S.C. § 511(a).

38

Accordingly, a decision regarding veterans

benefits must be appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals,
and thereafter is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
511(a), 7104(a), 7252(a).

See 38 U.S.C. §§

Under this scheme, the federal

district court lacks jurisdiction to review veterans’
benefits claims.

See Odonoghue v. U.S. Dept. of the Army,

No. 12-CV-5338 ENV, 2012 WL 5959979, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Nov.
26, 2012) (dismissing veterans’ benefits claim for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction); Ramnarain v. U.S. Veterans
Admin., No. 11 CV 4988(BMC), 2012 WL 1041664, at *4
(E.D.N.Y. Mar.28, 2012) (dismissing veterans’ benefits claim

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction).

Therefore,

because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to
review Schuett’s claims, Defendant VA’s Motion to Dismiss is
GRANTED.
District courts generally should not dismiss a pro se
complaint without granting leave to amend. See Cuoco v.
Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000).

However, the

Court need not grant leave to amend where doing so would be
futile. See id. (“The problem with [plaintiff’s] causes of
action is substantive; better pleading will not cure it.
Repleading would thus be futile.

Such a futile request to

replead should be denied.”) Here, the Court concludes that
granting leave to amend would be futile, because Schuett
cannot overcome the jurisdictional exclusion established
under Title 38, nor can he establish a waiver of sovereign
immunity necessary to bring suit against a federal
government agency.

See Odonoughue, 2012 WL 5959979, at *2.
Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, Defendant VA’s Motion
to Dismiss is GRANTED, and the case is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED.
Dated at Burlington, in the District of Vermont, this
21st day of July, 2015.
/s/ William K. Sessions III
William K. Sessions III
Judge, United States District Court

6