USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 96-1805
ROBERT E. BRADLEY,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES VETERANS ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Robert E. Bradley on brief pro se. _________________
Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, David R. Collins and ________________ _________________
Margaret D. McGaughey, Assistant United States Attorneys, on Motion ______________________
for Summary Affirmance for appellee.
____________________
January 22, 1997
____________________
Per Curiam. Pro se plaintiff Robert Bradley, an ___________ ___ __
incarcerated felon, appeals a district court judgment that
dismissed his action challenging the Veterans
Administration's decision to reduce his disability benefits
pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 5513(a)(1)(requiring temporary
reduction of veterans' benefits paid to incarcerated felons).
The district court dismissed Bradley's complaint on the
grounds that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under 38
U.S.C. 511(a), 7252(a). After thoroughly reviewing the
record and the parties' briefs on appeal, we conclude that
the district court order is clearly correct.
Bradley's complaint seeks to reverse the Veterans
Administration's decision to reduce his benefits based on his
status as an incarcerated felon. The district court is
prohibited from asserting jurisdiction over such claims by 38
U.S.C. 511, and it is well established that Bradley may not
circumvent this prohibition by asserting constitutional
claims. See, e.g., Zuspann v. Brown, 60 F.3d 1156, 1159 (5th ___ ____ _______ _____
Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 909 (1996); Sugrue v. _____ ______ ______
Derwinski, 26 F.3d 8, 11 (2d Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. _________ _____ ______
Ct. 2245 (1995); Larrabee by Jones v. Derwinski, 968 F.2d __________________ _________
1497, 1500-01 (2d Cir. 1992); Hicks v. Veterans _____ ________
Administration, 961 F.2d 1367, 1370 (8th Cir. 1992); Tietjen ______________ _______
v. U.S. Veterans Administration, 884 F.2d 514, 515 (9th Cir. ____________________________
1989); Milliken v. Gleason, 332 F.2d 122, 123 (1st Cir. ________ _______
-2-
1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 1002 (1965). Rather, Bradley's _____ ______
sole remedy is through the procedures established by the
Veterans Judicial Review Act, Pub. Law No. 100-687, 102 Stat.
4105 (1988). See Hall v. U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 85 ___ ____ _______________________________
F.3d 532, 535 (11th Cir. 1996)(per curiam).
Bradley's contention that 38 U.S.C. 511(a) violates
Article III and his right of access to the courts is
frivolous. See Marozsan v. United States, 90 F.3d 1284, 1288 ___ ________ _____________
(7th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, the judgment of dismissal is
summarily affirmed. See Local Rule 27.1. ________ ___
-3-