White v. Department of Veteran Affairs
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:19-cv-04333
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In White v. Department of Veteran Affairs, Judge Chhabria granted Elizabeth Curry White’s fee-waiver application and recommended dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
Elizabeth Curry White, whose fee-waiver application was granted but whose action was recommended for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction; the Department of Veteran Affairs and the other defendants, who received a jurisdiction-based recommendation in their favor.
What happened
Elizabeth Curry White sued the Department of Veteran Affairs and others, alleging that the agency improperly reduced her federal retirement payments to collect a debt. She applied to proceed without paying court fees, and the court granted that application.
The court screened the complaint under the federal law governing fee-waiver cases. It found that the claims involved the same allegations raised in an earlier case and directly affected veterans’ benefits. Because those claims fell within the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act, the court concluded that the federal district court lacked jurisdiction.
The court reassigned the case to a district judge and recommended that the action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Judge Chhabria is identified in the case metadata as the district judge; the opinion gave the parties 14 days to object to the recommendation.
The detailed version
- White v. Department of Veteran Affairs · No. 3:19-cv-04333
- Vince Chhabria
- Sept. 24, 2019
Background
Elizabeth Curry White filed this civil action against the Department of Veteran Affairs and others. She alleged that she had served as a fiduciary payee for her brother’s Veterans Affairs benefits. The VA determined that she had used $25,000 of her brother’s benefits to purchase a condominium and began withholding 25 percent of her federal retirement payments each month to collect the resulting debt. White disputed responsibility for the debt and alleged that her brother had falsified information provided to the VA.
White also applied to proceed without paying filing fees. The court granted that application. Under the federal fee-waiver statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss it if, among other things, the action is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant. The opinion also explains that a complaint may be considered frivolous when the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear the case.
Jurisdictional Analysis
The court stated that this was the second case White had filed concerning the VA’s alleged offset of her retirement payments. In the earlier case, the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction after finding that the claim fell within the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act of 1988. The court concluded that the present case involved the same claims and directly affected benefits governed by that Act.
The court therefore found that it also lacked jurisdiction over this action. The opinion noted White’s statement that she could not appeal to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims because she was not the veteran. The court explained that the earlier order had addressed that issue and that the cited materials did not preclude her from filing an appeal. The court also stated that it was unclear whether White had filed a claim with the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, which the court said was required before filing with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
Disposition
The court granted White’s application to proceed without paying filing fees, reassigned the action to a district judge, and recommended that the action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The opinion did not state in its concluding disposition that the recommended dismissal was with or without prejudice. Any party could file objections with the district judge within 14 days after being served with the recommendation. The opinion also referred White to a free help desk for people representing themselves, while noting that the help desk did not provide legal representation.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.