Gorden v. Commissioner of Veterans Administration

Background

DuWayne M. Gorden, representing himself, is a Vietnam-era U.S. Army veteran who is civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program. He challenged Department of Veterans Affairs decisions concerning his non-service-connected pension.

Gorden alleged that he applied for pension benefits in March 2019 and that the VA initially denied his application based on the agency’s determination that he received Social Security benefits. Gorden maintained that his Social Security benefits had been suspended in November 1991 and that he had received no such income since then. After higher-level reviews, the VA granted pension benefits but calculated his monthly payment at $157. Gorden asserted that this calculation still treated him as receiving Social Security income.

The VA later informed Gorden that it was withholding his pension because he was confined for treatment at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program. It also stated that benefits already paid had to be repaid. Gorden argued that civil commitment was not a lawful basis for withholding or terminating his benefits.

Claims and Requested Relief

The court treated Gorden’s filings as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, which gives federal district courts authority over actions seeking a court order requiring a federal official to perform a required duty. He sought an order requiring the VA to restore his pension, recover back benefits, and pay damages. He also submitted an application to proceed without paying filing fees and a motion for appointment of counsel.

Jurisdictional Analysis

The court identified a jurisdictional barrier in the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act, now codified at 38 U.S.C. § 511(a). That provision generally makes the Secretary of Veterans Affairs responsible for deciding legal and factual questions necessary to decisions about veterans’ benefits and bars review of those decisions by other officials or courts, including through a mandamus action.

The statute provides a separate review process. A veteran may appeal a VA regional office decision to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, then appeal the Board’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and then, if appropriate, seek review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The court concluded that Gorden’s claims fell within this bar because granting his requested relief would require the district court to decide whether the VA improperly reduced, terminated, or withheld his pension and demanded repayment. The court stated that Congress made the specialized review process exclusive for this type of dispute.

Gorden relied principally on a Federal Circuit decision involving a veteran who was civilly committed to a state mental hospital. The court noted that the decision may support Gorden’s underlying argument about the meaning of the governing benefits law, but it did not decide whether that argument was correct. Instead, the court explained that the decision illustrated why Gorden’s claims must proceed through the statutory veterans’ review process.

Recommended Disposition

The court recommended that Gorden’s motion for preemptory mandamus relief be denied and that this action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It also recommended denying as moot his application to proceed without paying filing fees and his motion for appointment of counsel.

The document is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, not a final district-court order or judgment. The notice states that it is not directly appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and that a party may file written objections within the time specified by the local rule.