Fisher v. The United States Treasury Department et al, No. 4:2023cv02545 - Document 14 (S.D. Tex. 2024)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - Fisher's claim, which seeks recovery of overpaid disability benefits, is directly related to an administrative decision regarding his veterans' benefits. The exclusive avenue for redress of veterans' be nefits determinations is an appeal to the Court of Veterans Appeals and from there to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Fisher's due process claim plainly concerns actions taken by the VA to reduce or withhold benefits and to recover overpayments in his particular case. Based on the foregoing, the court ORDERS as follows: 1. The 1 Complaint filed by Terrell Fisher is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 2. The dismissal SHALL NOT count as a "strike" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (sra4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Fisher v. The United States Treasury Department et al Doc. 14 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED March 26, 2024 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION TERRELL FISHER, TDCJ #2147651, Nathan Ochsner, Clerk § § § § § § § § Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES TREASURY DEPARTMENT, et al., CIVIL ACTION NO. H-23-2545 § § Defendants. § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiff, Terrell Fisher (TDCJ led #2147651), a handwritten pleading entitled "Summary of Judgment" that has been construed as a Compla (Docket Entry No. 1) against the United States Treasury Department (the "Treasury Department") and the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (the "VA"). i has The court an Order for More Definite (Docket Entry No. 12) and Fisher led a response ("Plaintiff's MOS") (Docket Entry No. 13), which provides additional details about is a prisoner who proceeds s claims. Because Fisher forma pauperis, the court is required to scrutinize the pleadings and dismiss the case if it determines that the action is " on which rel ous or malicious;" "fails to state a f may be granted;" or "seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." § 1915(e)(2) (B). concludes that 28 U.S.C. After considering all of the pleadings, the court this case must be dismissed for the reasons explained below. Dockets.Justia.com I:. Background Fisher is presently incarcerated by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division ("TDCJ u ) at the Pack Unit in Navasota. 1 Public records reflect that Fisher is currently serving a ten-year prison sentence that he received in 2017, for the offense of indecency with a child by contact. 2 Fisher previously received a seven-year sentence for failure to ter as a sex offender in 2003, and a three-year sentence for indecency with a child 1990.3 Fisher is a veteran of the United States Army. 4 that he began receiving disability bene Fisher states s from the VA 2021, following a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia and PTSD. 5 He reportedly received checks that were issued by the VA from the Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 5. For purposes of identification, all page numbers reference the pagination imprinted on docket entry by the court's Electronic Case Filing ("ECF") system. 1 Texas Department of Criminal Justice Offender Information, available at: https://inmate.tdcj.texas.gov (last vis March 25, 2024). Plaintiff's MDS, Question 13). 4 Docket Entry No. 13, p. 4 (Response to at 1 (Response to Questions 3 (a) and 3 (b) l. Fisher's response to Question 3 in the Order for More Definite Statement appear to be out of order. See Order for More Definite Statement, Docket Entry No. 12, p. 2. 5 -2- Treasury Department in the amount of $3,621.04 each month. 6 In January 2023, Fisher learned that he had received an overpayment of benefits and that the VA was taking $70.00 a month from his inmate trust fund account to recover the overpaid amount.7 Fisher estimates that he owes $14,000.00 to the VA for overpayment of veterans' benefits.8 Although his handwriting is difficult to decipher, Fisher appears to allege that the VA has wrongfully taken funds from his inmate trust fund account and returned them to the Treasury Department without giving him notice and an opportunity to request a waiver regulations.9 of overpayment in violation of its own He seeks recovery of the overpayments collected by the VA in violation of the right to due process.10 Plaintiff's MDS, Docket Entry No. 13, p. 1 (Response to Questions 3(c) and 3(d)). 6 7 Id. at 1 (Response to Questions 4(a) and 4(e)). Id. at 2 (Response to Question 5(b)). When a veteran is incarcerated for a felony conviction, the veteran "shall not be paid" the full amount of awarded compensation benefits "for the period beginning on the sixty-first day of such incarceration and ending on the day such incarceration ends." 38 U.S.C. § 5313(a)(1). Regulations that govern the reduction of veterans' benefits when they have been incarcerated for a felony conviction are found in 38 CFR § 3.665. 8 Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 1-4. Because the plaintiff represents himself, all of his pleadings have been reviewed under a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 92 S. Ct. 594, 596 ( 1972)(per curiam). 9 complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 1-4; Plaintiff's MDS, Docket Entry No. 13, p. 4 (Response to Question 10). 10 -3- :n:. Discussion Federal courts are "courts of limited jurisdiction, having 'only the authority endowed by the Constitution and that conferred by Congress.' 11 Halmekangas v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 603 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). Article III of the Constitution limits federal courts' jurisdiction to certain "Cases" and "Controversies." Clapper v. Amnesty Int' l USA, 133 S. Ct. The existence of subject matter 1138, 1146 (2013). ion may be challenged at any stage in the litigation and juri Nguyen may be raised by the district court on its own motion. v. District Director, Bureau of Immigration, 400 F.3d 255, 260 (5th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). "If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h) (3). Fisher's claim, which seeks recovery of overpaid disability benefits, is directly regarding his veterans' related to benefits. an administrative sions about decision veterans' benefits are not reviewable in a federal district court. 38 U.S.C. § 511 (a).11 "In 1988, Congress passed the Veterans' Judicial 11This provision states limits judicial review as follows: The Secretary [of the Department of Veterans Affairs] shall decide all questions of law 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. Subject to (continued... ) -4- Review Act ( "VJRA"), [] which clearly announced the intent of Congress to preclude review of benefits determinations in federal district courts." Zuspann v. Brown, 60 F.3d 1156, 1158 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing 38 U.S.C. § 7251 (1991)); Hall v. United States Department of Veterans' Affairs, 85 F.3d 532, 534 (11th Cir. 1996); see also Larrabee v. Derwinski, 968 F.2d 1497, 1499-1501 (2d Cir. 1992) (detailing legislative history in the area of veterans' benefits and the determinations). preclusion of judicial review of benefits The exclusive avenue for redress of veterans' benefits determinations is an appeal to the Court of Veterans Appeals and from there to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Zuspann, 60 F.3d at 1158-59; see also, , Bell v. Veterans Administration, 946 F. Supp. 479, 480 (W.D. Tex. 1996) (outlining the authority to review determinations by the Secretary of Veterans Af rs and issues related to benefits, over which a federal district court lacks jurisdiction). Fisher's due process claim plainly concerns actions taken by the VA to reduce or withhold benefits and to recover overpayments in his particular case. "Since the enactment of the VJRA, federal continued) subsection (b), the decision of the Secretary as to any such question shall be final and conclusive and may not be ewed by any other official or by any court, whether by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise. 11 ( • •• 38 U.S.C. § 511 (a). -5- courts have refused to entertain const ional claims if they are based on the VA's actions in a particular case." Zuspann, 60 F.3d at 1159 (citations omitted). As a result, Fisher's Complaint must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. id.; Hall, 85 F.3d at 534-35 (dismissing an inmate's claim for overpayment of benefits for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). III. Conc1usion and Order Based on the foregoing, the court ORDERS as follows: 1. The Complaint filed by Terrell Fisher (Docket Entry No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter j sdiction. 2. The dismissal shall not count as a "strike" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The C1erk is directed to provide a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to the p1aintiff. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 26th day of March, 2024. LAKE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -6-
]]>
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.
