KENDALL v. UNITED STATES (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-04-28No. No. 20-35433

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and remanded with instructions to amend the judgment to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice.

Gary Owen Kendall appealed the dismissal of his lawsuit seeking veterans' benefits. The district court lacked authority to hear the case because federal law grants exclusive jurisdiction over veterans' benefits claims to specialized courts—specifically the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the Federal Circuit. Kendall could not circumvent this jurisdictional restriction by framing his dispute as a constitutional issue or claiming other wrongdoing affected his benefits process.

The appeals court affirmed the dismissal but found that the district court had erred by failing to specify that the dismissal was without prejudice, meaning Kendall retains the right to refile his claim in the proper forum. The court also rejected Kendall's argument that denying his request for emergency relief violated the Constitution, finding it without merit.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Exclusive jurisdiction of Courts of Appeals for Veterans Claims over veterans' benefits disputes
Whether district courts may hear veterans' benefits claims dressed as constitutional challenges
Whether dismissals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be entered without prejudice

Procedural posture

Kendall appealed pro se from the district court's dismissal of his action concerning veterans' benefits, which the court of appeals reviewed de novo for subject matter jurisdiction.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Gary Owen Kendall appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing his action concerning his veterans’ benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Bishop Paiute Tribe v. Inyo County, 863 F.3d 1144, 1151 (9th Cir. 2017) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Kendalls action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the United States Courts of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the Federal Circuit have exclusive jurisdiction over questions that relate to benefits administered by the Veterans Administration. See 38 U.S.C. § 511(a); Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki, 678 F.3d 1013, 1022-25 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act generally precludes district court jurisdiction over claims relating to or affecting veterans’ benefits decisions, “even if the veteran dresses his claim as a constitutional challenge, and even where the veteran has challenged some other wrongful conduct that, although unrelated to the [Department of Veterans Affairs] ultimate decision on his claim, affected his or her benefits proceeding” (citations omitted)). However, a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be without prejudice. Kelly v. Fleetwood Enters., Inc., 377 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm the dismissal, and instruct the district court to amend the judgment to reflect that the dismissal of this action is without prejudice.

We reject Kendalls contention that the denial of his petition for ex parte injunction was unconstitutional as unpersuasive.

We do not consider allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions to amend the judgment.