Williams v. Veterans Affairs ( 2023 )

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 THOMAS L. WILLIAMS, Case No. 3:23-cv-00433-ART-CLB 7 Plaintiff, ORDER ON REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. 8 MAGISTRATE JUDGE VETERANS AFFAIRS, et al., (ECF No. 6) 9 Defendants. 10 11 I. SUMMARY 12 Pro se Plaintiff Thomas Williams brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 13 against Defendants Veterans Affairs and the VA Healthcare System in connection 14 with his VA disability claims and a recent arrest. (ECF No. 1-1 at 4-13.) Before 15 the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate 16 Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 6), recommending the Court dismiss the complaint 17 without leave to amend and enter judgment in favor of Defendants. Plaintiff filed 18 an objection to the R&R. (ECF No. 12 (“Objection”).) Because the Court agrees 19 with Judge Baldwin’s analysis, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. Accordingly, 20 the Court will dismiss the complaint and close this action. 21 II. BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiff alleges the following. He is an honorably discharged veteran 23 diagnosed with PTSD and bipolar disorder. (ECF No. 1-1 at 4-5.) Veterans Affairs 24 has denied his disability claims multiple times, and Plaintiff challenges these 25 decisions. (Id. at 4.) In addition, Plaintiff was arrested for a murder at his home 26 and argues that Veterans Affairs should provide him with legal representation. 27 (Id. at 5.) 28 Judge Baldwin recommends dismissing the complaint for the following 2 claims. (ECF No. 6 at 3.) Furthermore, Younger abstention prevents this Court 3 from intervening in ongoing state criminal proceedings. (Id. at 4.) 4 III. LEGAL STANDARD 5 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 6 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where 7 a party timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then 8 the Court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 9 [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.” Id. The Court’s review 10 is thus de novo because Plaintiff filed his Objection. (ECF No. 12.) 11 IV. DISCUSSION 12 Plaintiff makes several arguments in his Objection. First, Plaintiff argues 13 this Court can hear appeals of VA disability benefit decisions. Second, Plaintiff 14 argues the Sixth Amendment guarantees him representation by the VA for his 15 pending state criminal case. The Court will address each argument in turn. 16 A. VA Disability Claim 17 Plaintiff argues this Court can adjudicate his VA disability claim because 18 Defendants violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they 19 denied his claims. (ECF No. 12 at 2-3.) Federal courts are courts of limited 20 jurisdiction, meaning they can only hear cases authorized by the United States 21 Constitution or federal statutes. Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 22 365, 374 (1978). District courts cannot review “VA decisions that relate to 23 benefits decisions.” Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki, 678 F.3d 1013, 1025 24 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Beamon v. Brown, 125 F.3d 965, 971 (6th Cir. 1997)). 25 Thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s VA disability claim and must 26 dismiss the claim. 27 /// 28 /// 2 Next, Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to representation by the VA in his 3 upcoming criminal case. (ECF No. 12 at 8.) This Court cannot grant Plaintiff his 4 requested relief because of the Younger abstention doctrine. This doctrine 5 prevents federal courts from interfering with pending state criminal proceedings 6 except in extraordinary circumstances. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971). 7 To determine if Younger abstention applies, federal courts consider whether the 8 state criminal proceeding is “(1) ongoing, (2) implicate[s] important state interests, 9 and (3) provide[s] an adequate opportunity…to raise constitutional challenges.” 10 Herrera v. City of Palmdale, 918 F.3d 1037, 1044 (9th Cir. 2019). The Court finds 11 Younger abstention applies because it appears that the state criminal case is still 12 pending and implicates Nevada’s interest in protecting the public through 13 criminal prosecution. Furthermore, Plaintiff can raise his constitutional claims 14 in these state proceedings. Because Younger abstention applies here, the Court 15 will dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for legal representation in the state proceedings. 16 In sum, the Court finds Plaintiff has no surviving claims. The Court 17 therefore will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint and enter final judgment in favor of 18 Defendants. 19 V. CONCLUSION 20 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff’s objection (ECF No.12) to the Report 21 and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin is overruled. The 22 Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 6) is therefore adopted in full. 23 It is further ordered that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 24 No. 5) is granted. 25 It is further ordered that the Clerk file the complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 26 It is further ordered that the complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed without 27 leave to amend. 28 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s Motion for Younger Abstention (ECF No. 1 || 11) is denied as moot. 2 It is further ordered that this action is closed, and that judgment is entered 3 || accordingly. 4 5 6 DATED THIS 8th Day of December 2023. 7 8 Ares jlosead Ten 9 ANNE TRAUM = = —— 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28