Gary Don Thompson, Texas prisoner # 1653843, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) following the district court’s dismissal of his civil tort action for lack of jurisdiction because Thompson failed to demonstrate that he had exhausted administrative remedies. The district court certified that Thompson’s appeal was not taken in good faith and denied him leave to proceed IFP on appeal.

When a district court certifies that an appeal is frivolous and is not taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Fed.R.CivP. 24(a)(3), a litigant may either pay the filing fee or challenge the district[*317] court’s certification decision by filing a motion for leave to proceed IFP in this court. Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997). We may dismiss an appeal on consideration of an IFP motion if the appeal raises no arguable legal issues for appeal. Id. at 202 n. 24.

Federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over the benefits determinations of the V.A., with exceptions not applicable here. 38 U.S.C. § 511(a); Zuspann v. Brown, 60 F.3d 1156, 1158-59 (5th Cir.1995). The district court was without subject matter jurisdiction over Thompson’s action. We also lack subject matter jurisdiction. See § 511(a).

APPEAL DISMISSED.