From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rackham v. Department of Veterans Affairs

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia
Mar 1, 2004
Civil Action No. 7:03cv00574 (W.D. Va. Mar. 1, 2004)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 7:03cv00574

March 1, 2004


MEMORANDUM OPINION


William Rackham, proceeding pro se, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the Department of Veterans Affairs cut his disability payments, forced him into an "adult home," prevented him from applying for an apartment or for employment, and threatened to send him to a psychiatric hospital. Although it is unclear what specific remedy Rackham seeks from the court, he requests the court to "implament [sic] a waiver of all pensions, hospitalization and benefits." The Department of Veterans Affairs moved to dismiss the case and Rackham, who was properly notified of the motion, failed to respond. Since Rackham's claims are not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the court, the court grants the unopposed motion to dismiss.

I.

The Department of Veterans Affairs raises a host of defenses to Rackham's claims, including sovereign immunity, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and improper service of process. Initially, however, it should be noted that Rackham is proceeding pro se, but even pro se plaintiffs have the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. Davis v. U.S., 36 Fed. Cl. 556, 558 (1996). Here, Rackham bases his claims on § 1983, which applies to "[e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State" deprives anyone of a civil right. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. "[S]ection 1983 does not provide a forum to redress actions taken by the United States government or its agencies under federal law." Scott v. U.S. Veterans Administration, 749 F. Supp. 133, 134 (W.D. La. 1990). The federal government and its agencies are not "persons" within the meaning of § 1983 and are "facially exempt" from the statute. District of Columbia v. Carter, 409 U.S. 418, 425 (1973); Scott, 749 F. Supp. at 134 (granting a motion to dismiss because the Veterans Administration, which was later renamed to the Department of Veterans Affairs, is an agency of the federal government and, therefore, is not a "person" within the meaning of § 1983). Since the Department of Veterans Affairs, as an agency of the federal government, is not subject to claims based on § 1983, the court grants its motion to dismiss.

II.

For the reasons stated above, the court grants the Department of Veterans Affairs' motion to dismiss and dismisses the case without prejudice.

FINAL ORDER

In accordance with the written Memorandum Opinion entered this day, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Department of Veterans Affairs' motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to send certified copies of this Order and the accompanying Memorandum Opinion to the plaintiff and counsel of record for the defendant.


Summaries of

Rackham v. Department of Veterans Affairs

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia
Mar 1, 2004
Civil Action No. 7:03cv00574 (W.D. Va. Mar. 1, 2004)
Case details for

Rackham v. Department of Veterans Affairs

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM L. RACKHAM, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Virginia

Date published: Mar 1, 2004

Citations

Civil Action No. 7:03cv00574 (W.D. Va. Mar. 1, 2004)

Citing Cases

Settle v. U.S. Postal Office

Neither the United States Government, nor the various federal agencies can be sued under § 1983 because they…

Hutton v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs

"In other words, a § 1983 claim is limited to those cases where a defendant has acted under color of state…