Bradley v. Veterans

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________


No. 96-1805



                                  ROBERT E. BRADLEY,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                        UNITED STATES VETERANS ADMINISTRATION,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.



                                 ____________________


APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE



                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                               Selya, Boudin and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            Robert E. Bradley on brief pro se.
            _________________

            Jay P. McCloskey,  United States  Attorney, David  R. Collins  and
            ________________                            _________________

        Margaret D.  McGaughey, Assistant  United States Attorneys,  on Motion
        ______________________

        for Summary Affirmance for appellee.


____________________



                                   January 22, 1997

                                 ____________________



Per  Curiam.    Pro  se  plaintiff  Robert  Bradley,  an
                 ___________     ___  __



            incarcerated  felon, appeals a  district court  judgment that



            dismissed    his    action    challenging     the    Veterans



            Administration's decision to  reduce his disability  benefits



            pursuant  to  38  U.S.C.      5513(a)(1)(requiring  temporary



            reduction of veterans' benefits paid to incarcerated felons).



            The  district  court  dismissed Bradley's  complaint  on  the



            grounds that  it lacked subject matter  jurisdiction under 38



            U.S.C.     511(a), 7252(a).   After thoroughly  reviewing the



            record and the  parties' briefs on  appeal, we conclude  that



            the district court order is clearly correct.  



                 Bradley's  complaint  seeks   to  reverse  the  Veterans



            Administration's decision to reduce his benefits based on his



            status  as an  incarcerated  felon.   The  district court  is



            prohibited from asserting jurisdiction over such claims by 38



            U.S.C.   511, and it is well established that Bradley may not



            circumvent  this  prohibition  by   asserting  constitutional



            claims.  See, e.g., Zuspann v. Brown, 60 F.3d 1156, 1159 (5th
                     ___  ____  _______    _____



            Cir.  1995), cert. denied, 116  S. Ct. 909  (1996); Sugrue v.
                         _____ ______                           ______



            Derwinski, 26 F.3d 8, 11 (2d Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S.
            _________                                _____ ______



            Ct. 2245  (1995); Larrabee  by Jones  v. Derwinski,  968 F.2d
                              __________________     _________



            1497,   1500-01   (2d   Cir.   1992);   Hicks   v.   Veterans
                                                    _____        ________



            Administration, 961 F.2d 1367,  1370 (8th Cir. 1992); Tietjen
            ______________                                        _______



            v. U.S. Veterans Administration, 884 F.2d 514, 515  (9th Cir.
               ____________________________



            1989);  Milliken  v. Gleason,  332  F.2d 122,  123  (1st Cir.
                    ________     _______


-2-



1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 1002 (1965).  Rather, Bradley's
                   _____ ______



            sole  remedy is  through  the procedures  established by  the



            Veterans Judicial Review Act, Pub. Law No. 100-687, 102 Stat.



            4105 (1988).  See Hall v. U.S. Dept. of Veterans  Affairs, 85
                          ___ ____    _______________________________



            F.3d 532, 535 (11th Cir. 1996)(per curiam).    



                 Bradley's contention  that 38  U.S.C.    511(a) violates



            Article  III and  his  right  of  access  to  the  courts  is



            frivolous.  See Marozsan v. United States, 90 F.3d 1284, 1288
                        ___ ________    _____________



            (7th Cir.  1996). Accordingly,  the judgment of  dismissal is



            summarily affirmed.  See Local Rule 27.1.
                      ________   ___


-3-