Bluestein v. Levenson

2012 DNH 172

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: September 26, 2012
• Docket: CV-12-21-JL
• Status: Published

Opinion

Bluestein v. Levenson CV-12-21-JL 9/26/12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Brian Bluestein

v. Civil No. 12-cv-021-JL Opinion No. 2012 DNH 172 Marc Levenson

SUMMARY ORDER

Brian Bluestein, a disabled veteran, filed this action in

Hillsborough County Superior Court as a pro se petition for an ex

parte restraining order against defendant Marc Levenson, the

director of the Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") Medical

Center in Manchester. Bluestein seeks to stop Levenson and

others working for the VA from terminating the services that

Bluestein, a disabled veteran, receives through a joint program

of the VA and the Department of Housing and Urban Development

("HUD") known as "HUD-VASH" ("VASH" is an acronym for "Veterans

Affairs-Supported Housing") .

For Bluestein, these included case management services

affecting his eligibility for a rental assistance voucher under

§ 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, codified at

42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o). Federal law requires the VA "to assure

that every veteran who is provided a housing voucher through

[this section] is assigned to, and is seen as needed by, a case manager." 38 U.S.C. § 2003(b). Invoking this authority, the VA

has established procedures for fulfilling its role in the HUD-

VASH program, the primary stated goal of which "is to move

Veterans and their families out of homelessness." Dep't of

Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban-Development (HUD)-Department

of Veterans Affairs Supported Housing (VASH) Program, VHA

Handbook 1162.05, at 1 (Sept. 14, 2011). "A key component of

this program is VA's case management services." Id. Indeed,

eligibility is limited to veterans "in need of, and [] willing

and able to engage in clinical case management," id. at 21, and a

veteran who is no longer willing to do so may be discharged from

the HUD-VASH program, id. at 26.

Using a Section 8 voucher supplied by the Manchester Housing

and Redevelopment Authority ("MHRA"), Bluestein had been living

at a privately owned and operated housing complex. Harbor Homes,

in Nashua, New Hampshire. In December 2011, however, VA

officials formally notified Bluestein that he had been terminated

from its case management program for his "non-compliance with

program requirements," which the officials took to indicate that

Bluestein "no longer want[ed] or need[ed] the services of the

VASH program." Bluestein alleges that the VA officials took this

action in retaliation for another lawsuit he had filed, against

Harbor Homes, and that he "never had a problem with case

2 management." The MHRA subsequently informed Bluestein that it

was terminating his voucher effective January 21, 2012 because,

through his alleged "non-compliance with the case management

component of the VASH program," he had violated his "Veterans

Service and Housing Agreement."

After Bluestein commenced this action, however, the VA

informed the MHRA that the VA "would like to rescind our request

to have Brian Bluestein's VASH voucher terminated." The MHRA, in

turn, informed Bluestein's landlord that, despite previous

communications, it would continue making rental payments on his

behalf under the voucher program. On January 4, 2012, the VA

informed Bluestein by letter that its previous letter "notifying

[him] that [his] participation in the HUD-VASH program was being

rescinded" and that he "ha[d] not been discharged from the HUD-

VASH program at this time." But the January letter also claimed

that Bluestein had signed an agreement committing to certain

program requirements, requested that he schedule a meeting with

the program staff to discuss his treatment goals, and warned him

that his "failure to schedule or attend this meeting may result

in your being discharged from the HUD-VASH program."

In the meantime, the Superior Court had denied Bluestein's

petition for an ex parte restraining order but scheduled a

hearing on it for late January 2012. Order of Dec. 16, 2011.

3 Before that hearing took place, however, Levenson removed the

case to this court, invoking 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) (providing

that actions against federal officers "for or relating to any act

under color of such office" may be removed from state to federal

district court). Bluestein then filed another ex parte motion

for a restraining order, which this court denied without

prejudice to reconsideration as a motion for a preliminary

injunction. Order of Jan. 23, 2012. The court also scheduled a

telephone conference for the purpose of scheduling briefing and a

hearing on such a motion, should Bluestein choose to file one.

The conference ultimately took place over Bluestein's objection,

but he never filed a motion for a preliminary injunction or

sought any other interim relief.

Levenson, for his part, filed a motion to dismiss under Rule

12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that

this court lacks jurisdiction over this action by virtue of 38

U.S.C. § 511(a). That statute provides that the Secretary of the

VA "shall decide all questions of law and fact necessary to a

decision by the Secretary under a law that affects the provision

of benefits to veterans" and that, with a few specified

exceptions,1 "the decision of the Secretary as to any such

1One of these exceptions is "matters subject to" 38 U.S.C. § 502, which provides that "[a]n action of the Secretary to which

4 question shall be final and conclusive and shall not be reviewed

by any court." Under 38 U.S.C. § 511(b)(4), one of these

exceptions is "matters covered by chapter 72 of this title,"

i.e., 38 U.S.C. §§ 7251-7299, which, among other things,

establishes the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to "review

decisions of the Board of Veterans' Appeals," id. §§ 7251-7252.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals has jurisdiction over appeals from

the Secretary of the VA's decisions as to "[a]11 questions in a

matter which under [§ 511(a)] is subject to a decision by the

Secretary." Id. § 7104(a). Decisions by the Court of Appeals

for Veterans Claims, in turn, are reviewable only by the United

States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See id. § 7292.

"Thus, under the statutory scheme, judicial review of a

particular application of the law made by the Secretary with

respect to a veteran's entitlement to benefits may be had only by

appealing to the Board [of Veterans' Appeals], then to the Court

of Veterans' Appeals, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals and

[5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(1) or 553] refers is subject to judicial review." But "[s]uch review . . . may be sought only in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit." Id. Thus, while Levenson argues that 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(1) and 553 do not apply to the VA's conduct at issue here, the court need not reach that argument. Even if those provisions did apply, they would provide for judicial review only in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, not in this court. The other exceptions to § 511(a)'s ban on judicial review plainly do not apply. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 511(b) (2) -(3) .

5 the Supreme Court." Hall v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 85 F.3d

532, 534 (11th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). It follows that this

court "is prohibited from asserting jurisdiction over such claims

by 38 U.S.C. § 511." Bradley v. Veterans Admin., 106 F.3d 383

(table), 1997 WL 22461, at *1 (1st Cir. Jan. 22, 1997)

(unpublished per curiam disposition).

This action, which seeks to prevent Levenson and other VA

employees from "taking away . . . medical services through the

veteran HUD/VASH housing" program, seeks review of "questions of

law and fact necessary to a decision by the Secretary under a law

that affects the provision of benefits to veterans," i.e., those

establishing the HUD-VASH program. As a result, § 511(a)

prevents this court from exercising jurisdiction here. See Smart

v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 759 F. Supp. 2d 867, 872-73 (W.D.

Tex. 2010) (ruling that § 511(a) barred veteran's claim that he

had been wrongfully denied admission to the HUD-VASH program).

This is true even though Bluestein seems to claim that the

VA officials terminated him from the HUD-VASH program in

retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights, i.e., to

bring his lawsuit against Harbor Homes, and that, in his

objection to the motion to dismiss, he accuses those officials of

violating a number of other federal statutes, e.g., the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act,

6 and a number of federal criminal statutes. So far as the court

can tell, all of these claims arise out of either the VA's

initial decision to terminate him from the HUD-VASH program, or,

following the reversal of that decision, the VA's insistence that

he pursue particular case management services on pain of being

terminated again.- "The courts have consistently held that a

federal district court may not entertain constitutional or

statutory claims whose resolution would require the court to

intrude upon the VA's exclusive jurisdiction" to make decisions

as to a veteran's benefits under § 511(a) . Price v. United

States, 228 F.3d 420, 422 (D.C. Cir. 2000); see also Bradley,

1997 WL 22461, at *1 ("it is well established that [a veteran]

may not circumvent [§ 511(a) ] by asserting constitutional

claims"); Weaver v. United States, 98 F.3d 518, 520 (10th Cir.

1996) (holding that § 511(a) deprived district court of

-The one possible exception is Bluestein's claim that the officials violated certain federal criminal statutes in defending this lawsuit (e.g., Bluestein alleges that they committed perjury and obstruction of justice by submitting false affidavits in support of the motion to dismiss). "Generally, however, a private citizen has no authority to initiate a federal criminal prosecution," nor to seek other relief based on alleged violations of federal criminal statutes. Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1989); see also, e.g.. Fuller v. Unknown Officials from the Justice Dep't, 387 Fed. Appx. 3, 4 (D.C. Cir. 2010) ("there is no private cause of action for perjury, subornation of perjury, false declarations before a grand jury or court, or false statements" in violation of various federal criminal statutes).

7 jurisdiction over claims against individual VA officials for all

of their "actions taken in connection with the denial" of a

veteran's benefits).

As just discussed, if Bluestein wishes to pursue his

challenge to the VA's announced decision to eject him from the

HUD-VASH program, or its insistence that he participate in

certain case management services or risk ejection again, then

Bluestein must pursue that challenge before the Board of Veterans

Appeals. This court, lacking jurisdiction, expresses no view as

to the merits of any appeal, nor may it conduct a hearing on the

merits of Bluestein's claims (as he has repeatedly requested).

For the foregoing reasons, Levenson's motion to dismiss for

lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (document no. 9) is GRANTED.

The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2012

cc: Brian Bluestein, pro se Gretchen Leah Witt, AUSA