Michael S. Ross v. United States of Am., 462 F.2d 618 (9th Cir. 1972). · Go Syfert
Search
Michael S. Ross v. United States of Am., 462 F.2d 618 (9th Cir. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
28 citation events across 14 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Eugene Traynor v. Harry W. Walters, Administrator of the Veterans Administration, Defendants (ca2, 1986-05-16)
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Eugene Traynor v. Harry W. Walters, Administrator of the Veterans Administration, Defendants (2×)
2d Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
See Walters v. National Association of Radiation Survivors, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 3180, 3182 , 87 L.Ed.2d 220 (1985) ("[j]udicial review of VA decisions is precluded by statute"); Pappanikoloaou v. Administrator of the Veterans Administration, 762 F.2d 8, 9 (2d Cir.) ("[o]ne may not circumvent Sec. 211(a) by seeking damages on a constitutional claim arising out of a denial of benefits"), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 150 , 88 L.Ed.2d 124 (1985); accord Rosen v. Walters, 719 F.2d 1422, 1424-25 (9th Cir.1983); Anderson v. Veterans Administration, 559 F.2d 935, 936 (5th Cir.1977); Ros…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Calvin Rosen v. Harry N. Walters, Director of the Veterans Administration, and the Veterans Administration (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
9th Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
See Barefield v. Byrd, 320 F.2d 455, 458 (5th Cir.1963) (Administrative Procedure Act does not permit review of VA procedure on denial of disability); Ross v. United States, 462 F.2d at 619 (civil damage suit for damages for due process violation and defamation involved in denial of disability benefits barred by § 211(a)); Anderson v. Veterans Administration, 559 F.2d at 935 (§ 211(a) bars civil action alleging the VA’s hearing procedures on plaintiff’s disability claim were inadequate and violated his civil rights).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Barry v. United States
D.S.C. · 1981 · confidence medium
Ross v. United States, 462 F.2d 618, 619 (9th Cir. 1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Carter v. Cleland
D.D.C. · 1979 · confidence medium
E. g., Moore v. Johnson, 582 F.2d 1228, 1232 (9th Cir. 1978) (challenge to relocation of disabled veterans; unreviewable even if discretion abused); Anderson v. Veterans Administration, 559 F.2d 935, 936 (5th Cir. 1977) (per curiam) (challenge to denial of benefits on constitutional grounds; fact that suit “assumes the posture of constitutional attack” does not remove pall of § 211(a)); Ross v. United States, 462 F.2d 618, 619 (9th Cir. 1972) (per curiam) (suit for damages because of denial of benefits barred by § 211(a) although denial of due process was alleged); Wexler v. Roudebush, 4…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Isobel Moore v. Donald E. Johnson
9th Cir. · 1978 · confidence medium
Ross v. United States, 462 F.2d 618, 619 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 984 , 93 S.Ct. 326 , 34 L.Ed.2d 249 (1972).
discussed Cited "see" Anderson v. Veterans Administration
5th Cir. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ross v. United States, 462 F.2d 618 (9 Cir. 1972) (civil damage suit asserting denial of due process barred by § 211(a)); Milliken v. Gleason, 332 F.2d 122 (1 Cir. 1964) (§ 211(a) bars suit alleging deprivation of constitutional and civil rights by illegal seizure and use of evidence and by inadequate administrative hearing procedures); Barefield v. Byrd, 320 F.2d 455 (5 Cir. 1963) (§ 211(a) removes jurisdiction from action claiming denial of opportunity to examine evidence and to face adverse witnesses); Van Horne v. Hines, 74 App.D.C. 214 , 122 F.2d 207 (1941) (claim of no notice or o…
discussed Cited "see" Anderson v. Veterans Administration
5th Cir. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ross v. United States, 462 F.2d 618 (9 Cir. 1972) (civil damage suit asserting denial of due process barred by § 211(a)); Milliken v. Gleason, 332 F.2d 122 (1 Cir. 1964) (§ 211(a) bars suit alleging deprivation of constitutional and civil rights by illegal seizure and use of evidence and by inadequate administrative hearing procedures); Barefield v. Byrd, 320 F.2d 455 (5 Cir. 1963) (§ 211(a) removes jurisdiction from action claiming denial of opportunity to examine evidence and to face adverse witnesses); Van Horne v. Hines, 74 App.D.C. 214 , 122 F.2d 207 (1941) (claim of no notice or o…
cited Cited "see" Henry Hernandez Thomas J. Wolf and the Class Represented v. Veterans' Administration, Peter Miller and Gary Lehn v. Veterans Administration of the United States of America
9th Cir. · 1972 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord, Ross v. United States, 462 F.2d 618 (9th Cir., 1972). 3 The appellants argued that 38 U.S.C.
cited Cited "see" Hernandez v. Veterans' Administration
9th Cir. · 1972 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord, Ross v. United States, 462 F.2d 618 (9th Cir., 1972).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Michael S. ROSS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
72-1367.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jul 26, 1972.
462 F.2d 618
Michael S. Ross, in pro. per., William D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Frederick M. Brosio, Jr., Clarke A. Nicely, Asst. U. S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
Browning, Hufstedler, Per Curiam, Wright.
Cited by 25 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Appellant’s complaint against the United States, the Veterans’ Administration, the Air Force, a Naval Reserve doctor named Carden, and the members of the Veterans’ Administration Rating Board and the Appeals Board was properly dismissed by the district court for want of jurisdiction of the subject matter.

The root of appellant’s claim is that Dr. Carden caused a defamatory psychiatric report to be placed in appellant’s file which was later used by the Rating Board to deny him veteran’s benefits. He asserted that he was denied due process and that he was defamed and defrauded by the actions of the Rating and Appeals Boards. Although the complaint is in the form of a civil damage suit, the substance of the action is an attempt to obtain judicial review of a final determination by the Veterans’ Administration. Title 38 U.S.C. § 211(a) forecloses judicial review, with exceptions not here material. [1] (Fritz v. Director of Veterans Administration (9th Cir. 1970) 427 F.2d 154; Redfield v. Driver (9th Cir. 1966) 364 F.2d 812; Milliken v. Gleason (1st Cir. 1964) 332 F.2d 122, cert. denied, 379 U.S. 1002, 85 S.Ct. 723, 13 L.Ed.2d 703; see Lynch v. United States (1934) 292 U.S. 571, 587, 54 S.Ct. 840, 78 L.Ed. 1434.)

“When the United States creates rights in individuals against itself, it is under no obligation to provide a remedy through the courts. United States v. Babcock, 250 U.S. 328, 331, 39 S.Ct. 464, 63 L.Ed. 1011. It may limit the individual to administrative remedies Tutun v. United States, 270 U.S. 568, 576, 46 S.Ct. 425, 70 L.Ed. 738.” (Lynch v. United States, supra, 292 U.S. at 582, 54 S.Ct. at 845.)

Because the jurisdictional point disposes of the litigation, it is unnecessary to discuss appellant’s remaining contentions.

The judgment is affirmed.

1

. In pertinent part § 211(a) provides: “[T]he decisions of the Administrator on any question of law or fact under any law administered by the Veterans’ Administration providing benefits for veterans and their dependents or survivors shall be final and conclusive and no other official or any court of the United States shall have power or jurisdiction to review any such decision by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise.”