LASKY v. UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, No. 1:2012cv02009 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 12/12/2012. (ls, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) KENNETH CHARLES LASKY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, Defendant. DEC 17 2012 Clerk, us Dis . Courts to.r ihe o~'f~ &Bankruptcy ts net of Columbia Civil Action No. 12 2009 MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court upon consideration of plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and his prose complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed. Plaintiff alleges that "he has contracted cancer" as a result of having "conduct[ ed] radar-test for the (USAF) ... while on active duty." Compl. at 1 (page numbers designated by the Court). Notwithstanding his less than honorable discharge on July 27, 1957, id. at 2, he claims that he is entitled to "the reinstatement of his military medical benefits to treat his medical conditions at a military hospital," id. at 1. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs "shall decide all questions oflaw 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." 38 U.S.C. § 511(a). The Secretary's decision "as to any such question shall be final and conclusive and may not be reviewed by any other official or by any court[.]" !d. Therefore, this federal district court does not have jurisdiction over matters relating to veterans benefits. See Price v. United States, 228 F.3d 420, 421-22 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ("As amended by the Veterans Judicial Review Act ... , the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1957 ... precludes judicial review in Article III courts ofV A decisions affecting the provision of veterans' benefits") (per curiam), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 903 (2001); see Jones v Nicholson, No. 1:07-CV-165, 2011 WL 2160918 (M.D. Ga. June 1, 2011) (dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction veteran's claim for benefits); Peavey v. Holder, 657 F. Supp. 2d 180 (D.D.C. 2009) (dismissing challenge to VA's decisions on claim for benefits notwithstanding veteran's "attempts to avoid application of§ 511 by labeling his claims as constitutional claims"). The Court will dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter. An Order is issued separately. DATE: t !.-L tz.- ( t:L
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
