Opinion
Case No. 01-2428-JWL
May 30, 2003.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed suit against defendant seeking monetary damages and other relief in connection with the processing of his applications for various benefits from the Veteran's Administration. In February 2002, this court dismissed plaintiff's complaint in its entirety for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 511(a). Plaintiff appealed the decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. On January 29, 2003, the Circuit issued an order affirming this court's decision except to the extent it dismissed plaintiff's constitutional challenge to 28 U.S.C. § 1346(d), a claim alleged in "Fact 12" of plaintiff's complaint. According to the Circuit, section 511(a) does not divest the court of jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's constitutional claim and, thus, it was error to dismiss the claim on jurisdictional grounds.
After the mandate issued from the Circuit, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's remaining claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (doc. #39). As set forth below, the motion is granted.
Plaintiff alleges in Fact 12 of his complaint that 28 U.S.C. § 1346(d) "conflicts with the US Constitution and is unconstitutional and violates the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution right to a jury trial in equity claims." Complaint ¶ 12. On its face, then, plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim and is subject to dismissal because the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial attaches only to actions at law, not to those in equity. See Mile High Indus. v. Cohen, 222 F.3d 845, 856 (10th Cir. 2000).
Because paragraph 12 of plaintiff's complaint is written in the conjunctive, it could be read to suggest that plaintiff is challenging section 1346(d) as violative of the Seventh Amendment as well as some other aspect of the Constitution. Plaintiff makes clear in his papers, however, that he is challenging the statute only on Seventh Amendment grounds.
In any event, section 1346(d) does not limit a party's right to a jury trial in cases involving veteran's benefits; rather, it limits the jurisdiction of the federal district courts. In that regard, section 1346(d) provides that "[t]he district courts shall not have jurisdiction under this section [actions against the United States] of any civil action or claim for a pension." It is beyond dispute that Congress "has the constitutional authority to define the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, and, once the lines are drawn, limits upon federal jurisdiction . . . must be neither disregarded nor evaded." See, e.g., Castaneda v. I.N.S., 23 F.3d 1576, 1579 n. 2 (10th Cir. 1994) (citing cases). For this reason, too, then, plaintiff's constitutional challenge to section 1346(d) is unsound.
Finally, "[i]t has long been settled that the Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury does not apply in actions against the Federal Government" and that "[w]hatever force the Amendment has therefore is derived because Congress, in the legislation cited, has made it applicable." See Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156, 160 (1981) (citations omitted). This is yet another reason why plaintiff's claim that section 1346(d) is unconstitutional in that it violates the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial lacks merit.
For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's constitutional challenge to 28 U.S.C. § 1346(d) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and the defendant's motion to dismiss is therefore granted. In light of the dismissal of plaintiff's claim, the court disposes with the remaining motions filed by plaintiff, including his motions for declaratory judgment and his motion for review of the magistrate judge's order, as moot. See Williams v. United States, 2002 WL 31813058, at *2 (10th Cir. Dec. 16, 2002) ("The district court . . . correctly disposed of all remaining motions filed by [plaintiff] as being moot in light of the dismissal of his claims.").
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT defendant's motion to dismiss (doc. #39) is granted; plaintiff's motion for declaratory judgment (doc. #45) is moot; plaintiff's motion to review the magistrate judge's order (doc. #50) is moot; and plaintiff's motion for declaratory judgment (doc. #51) is moot. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.