Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wayne H. Ford v. Eric K. Shinseki

April 16, 2012


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge


Wayne H. Ford ("Plaintiff") is proceeding pro se in this action against Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to recover interest on his disability compensation, which was paid retroactively. On April 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed his amended complaint. (Doc. 30). For the reasons set forth below, it is hereby recommended Plaintiff's amended complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

I. Factual and Procedural History

Plaintiff alleges that the Veterans Affairs General Council ruling dated September 12, 1979, granted Aid and Attendance to disabled veterans who "lost the control of bowel and bladder." (Doc. 1 at 1). As a result, he received "disability compensation for Aid and Attendance." Id. However, a decision by the Board of Veterans Appeal on May 22, 1989, made Plaintiff unqualified for Aid and Attendance, and he no longer received compensation. Id.

On January 9, 2009, the decision concerning the issue of Aid and Attendance was reversed, 2 and Plaintiff was paid retro-actively for the period of time from October 1, 1988 through November 3 30, 2009. (Doc. 1 at 2). According to Plaintiff, "From October 1988 thru [sic] November 2009 the Dept. of Veteran's Affairs wrongfully seized a total of $137,102.00 of [his] monthly disability 5 compensation." (Doc. 30 at 1). Plaintiff asserts he "sent a notice of demand for interest on the 6 wrongfully seized money to Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Mr. Shinseki," on April 8, 2010. Id. at 2. 7

The VA did not respond to Plaintiff's demand for interest. Id. Therefore, Plaintiff initiated this action 8 on August 3, 2010, and requests that the Court award him the interest that was demanded, totaling 9 $284,397.00 and punitive damages in the amount of $100,000,000.00. (Doc. 30 at 2-3).

The Court screened Plaintiff's complaint and found the Court lacked jurisdiction over the matter, because the Department of Veteran's Affairs has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals of decisions regarding benefits. (Doc. 17). Therefore, the Court recommended the complaint be dismissed with prejudice for a lack of jurisdiction on November 9, 2010. Id. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendations on November 19, 2010. (Doc. 18). However, the Findings and Recommendations were adopted in full on December 1, 2010, and Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 20).

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit on December 13, 2010. (Doc. 22). The Ninth Circuit issued an opinion on March 6, 2012, affirming in part and vacating in part the decision of the District Court, and remanding the action. (Doc. 28). The Ninth Circuit held the Court "properly dismissed Ford's action because the Board of Veteran's Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction over the VA's decision regarding the provision of veterans' benefits, even when couched as a constitutional claim." Id. at 2. However, the Ninth Circuit noted the complaint "should have been dismissed without prejudice." Id. Therefore, the matter was remanded "with instructions for the district court to enter judgment of dismissal without prejudice."

On March 30, 2012, the Court issued a minute order, providing "Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint within 20 days of electronic service." (Doc. 29). Accordingly, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on April 12, 2012. (Doc. 30).

II. Screening

Though a filing fee was paid, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court is obligated to 3 dismiss any case at any time if the action "(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon 4 which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 5 such relief." In addition, the Court may dismiss an action sua sponte if it lacks jurisdiction over the 6 matter. Fielder v. Clark, 714 F.2d 77, 78 (9th Cir. 1983) (court must dismiss action whenever it 7 determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction). 8

III. Jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Claims

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint makes no changes to the underlying facts or claims in this action. As the Court determined previously, his claim to benefits arises under the laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. 38 U.S.C. § 301, et seq. "The Veterans' Judicial Review Act of 1988 provides the exclusive means for appealing benefit decisions made by the Department of Veterans Affairs." Jenkins v. Dep't of Veteran's Affairs, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51875, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 19, 2009). Consistently, federal courts have held that "a federal district court may not entertain constitutional or statutory claims whose resolution would require the court to intrude upon the VA's exclusive jurisdiction." Price v. United States, 228 F.3d 420, 422 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (citing Beamon v. Brown, 125 F.3d 965, 972-74 (6th Cir. 1997)); Weaver v. United States, 98 F.3d 519, 520 (10th Cir. 1996); Hicks v. Small, 69 F.3d 967, 970 (9th Cir. 1995).

As the Court noted in its review of Plaintiff's initial complaint, he has received benefits from the VA. Generally, where a veteran is dissatisfied with the resolution of a claim, he can appeal the decision to the Board of Veterans' Appeals. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a). A claimant may appeal an adverse decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252, 7261. As one district court explained, The Court of Appeals "shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review decisions of the Board of Veterans' ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.