Opinion
Civil Action No. 11-102.
February 28, 2011
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court upon consideration of plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed.
Plaintiff purports to bring a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, and under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), see 28 U.S.C. § 2674 et seq., arising from the denial of benefits owed for a service-connected injury sustained in 1972. The Secretary 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." 38 U.S.C. § 511(a). The Secretary's decisions "as to any such question shall be final and conclusive and may not be reviewed by any other official or by any court[.]" Id. A federal district court does not have jurisdiction over matters relating to veterans benefits. Price v. United States, 228 F.3d 420 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1957 "precludes judicial review in Article III courts of VA decisions affecting the provision of veterans' benefits"), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 903 (2001).
Insofar as plaintiff attempts to bring an action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 396 (1971), against the defendants in their individual capacities, no such remedy is available. See Thomas v. Principi, 394 F.3d 970, 975-76 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (affirming dismissal of Bivens claims against Department of Veterans Affairs employees for constitutional torts in the context of a dispute over veterans' benefits). Furthermore, plaintiff's FTCA claim fails because "the United States simply has not rendered itself liable under [the FTCA] for constitutional tort claims." Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 478 (1994); see Zakiya v. United States, 267 F. Supp. 2d 47, 56 (D.D.C. 2003).
The Court will dismiss the complaint in part for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and in part because it fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. An Order is issued separately.
DATE: Feb. 16, 2011