WAYNE FORD V. ERIC SHINSEKI, No. 10-17827 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED MAR 06 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WAYNE H. FORD, No. 10-17827 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:10-cv-01384-AWI-JLT v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted February 21, 2012 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Wayne H. Ford appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action alleging that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs ( VA ) violated his constitutional rights by failing to pay him * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). interest on an award of retroactive veterans disability benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Coyle v. P.T. Garuda Indonesia, 363 F.3d 979, 984 n.7 (9th Cir. 2004) (subject matter jurisdiction dismissal); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) dismissal). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand. The district court properly dismissed Ford s action because the Board of Veterans Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction over the VA s decision regarding the provision of veterans benefits, even when couched as a constitutional claim. See 38 U.S.C. § 511(a) (VA decides all issues under any law affecting the provision of benefits to veterans); id. § 7104(a) (Board of Veterans Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction over VA s benefits decisions); Tietjen v. U.S. Veterans Admin., 884 F.2d 514, 515 (9th Cir. 1989) (order) (affirming dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where veteran s due process claim related to reduced disability benefits because the substance of the claim was the allocation of veterans benefits, not a challenge to the constitutionality of legislation governing VA benefits). However, Ford s claims should have been dismissed without prejudice. See Kelly v. Fleetwood Enters., Inc., 377 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2004). We therefore affirm dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but remand with instructions for the district court to enter judgment of dismissal without prejudice. 2 10-17827 Ford s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. Ford s motion to submit additional opinions is construed as a citation of supplemental authorities under Fed. R. App. P. 28(j), and the cases are duly noted. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED. 3 10-17827
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.
