Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dello v. United States

United States District Court, District of Nevada

November 5, 2014

CHRISTY J. DELLO, Plaintiff(s),
v.
UNITED STATES, Defendant(s)

Christy Joseph Dello, Plaintiff, Pro se, Henderson, NV.

ORDER (Docket No. 3)

NANCY J. KOPPE, United States Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Christy Dello is proceeding in this action pro se and has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis . Docket No. 3. Plaintiff also submitted a redacted Complaint on September 15, 2014.[1] Id. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule IB 1-9.

I. In Forma Pauperis Application

Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing an inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Docket No. 3. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The court will now review Plaintiff's Complaint.

. . .

II. Screening the Complaint

Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must additionally screen a complaint pursuant to § 1915.[2] Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the action is legally " frivolous or malicious, " fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915(a), the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

In addition, the Court has a duty to ensure that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute before it. See, e.g., Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only that power authorized by the Constitution and statute. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. Of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). Plaintiff has not alleged federal jurisdiction exists in this case. Plaintiff does not explicitly list the law(s) under which he brings his claims, but the allegations relate to the actions of the United States Department of Veteran Affairs.

Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.101, once a claim has been denied by the local VA office, a claimant may appeal the decision to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (" BVA"). The BVA has jurisdiction to review benefit claims determinations made by local Veterans' Affairs (" VA") offices and issue decisions on appeals. 38 U.S.C. § 7104. If the BVA denies the claim, a claimant has the option of doing one of the following:

1. Reopen the claim with the local VA office if new and material evidence can be presented with respect to the claim that was denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5108.
2. File a motion for reconsideration asking the BVA to review the case again because there was a clear and unmistakable error in the decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7103.
3. File an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.