462 F.2d 618 - Ross v. United States — 462 F.2d 618

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently January 1996 · most notably Czerkies v. U.S. Department of Labor (1996), Rosen v. Walters (1983)

22 federal appellate · 2 district ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1 *619Michael S. Ross, in pro. per.

¶2William D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Frederick M. Brosio, Jr., Clarke A. Nicely, Asst. U. S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellees.

¶3Before BROWNING, HUFSTEDLER, and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM:

¶5Appellant’s complaint against the United States, the Veterans’ Administration, the Air Force, a Naval Reserve doctor named Carden, and the members of the Veterans’ Administration Rating Board and the Appeals Board was properly dismissed by the district court for want of jurisdiction of the subject matter.

¶6The root of appellant’s claim is that Dr. Carden caused a defamatory psychiatric report to be placed in appellant’s file which was later used by the Rating Board to deny him veteran’s benefits. He asserted that he was denied due process and that he was defamed and defrauded by the actions of the Rating and Appeals Boards. Although the complaint is in the form of a civil damage suit, the substance of the action is an attempt to obtain judicial review of a final determination by the Veterans’ Administration. Title 38 U.S.C. § 211(a) forecloses judicial review, with exceptions not here material.1 (Fritz v. Director of Veterans Administration (9th Cir. 1970) 427 F.2d 154; Redfield v. Driver (9th Cir. 1966) 364 F.2d 812; Milliken v. Gleason (1st Cir. 1964) 332 F.2d 122, cert. denied, 379 U.S. 1002, 85 S.Ct. 723, 13 L.Ed.2d 703; see Lynch v. United States (1934) 292 U.S. 571, 587, 54 S.Ct. 840, 78 L.Ed. 1434.)

“When the United States creates rights in individuals against itself, it is under no obligation to provide a remedy through the courts. United States v. Babcock, 250 U.S. 328, 331, 39 S.Ct. 464, 63 L.Ed. 1011. It may limit the individual to administrative remedies Tutun v. United States, 270 U.S. 568, 576, 46 S.Ct. 425, 70 L.Ed. 738.” (Lynch v. United States, supra, 292 U.S. at 582, 54 S.Ct. at 845.)

¶7Because the jurisdictional point disposes of the litigation, it is unnecessary to discuss appellant’s remaining contentions.

¶8The judgment is affirmed.