Melvin v. Shulkin
697 F. App'x 1020
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Pamela Melvin, a pro se veteran, filed multiple petitions for writs of mandamus seeking medical benefits, record corrections, and access to VA records.
- The Veterans Court consolidated earlier petitions and denied most relief for lack of jurisdiction over the claimed benefits.
- Melvin submitted a new petition on March 11, 2016 with a filing-fee check but later called to withdraw the petition and asked that the check be returned.
- The Veterans Court, apparently believing the fee had been paid and Melvin wanted adjudication, ordered the VA to respond; upon clarification, the court dismissed the petition, returned the fee, and denied Melvin’s motion for sanctions.
- Melvin appealed the denial of sanctions to the Federal Circuit, arguing the filing and alleged deletion of her briefs violated her Fifth Amendment rights and that the VA acted in bad faith.
- The Federal Circuit concluded it lacked jurisdiction over factual determinations and waived constitutional arguments not raised below, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Veterans Court should have imposed sanctions for filing Melvin’s petition without her consent | Melvin: the court/VA filed the petition using her fee without consent and deleted her drafts; sanctions required | VA/Veterans Court: actions resulted from misunderstanding; no willful misconduct shown | Denied — determination whether sanctions appropriate is factual and unreviewable by Federal Circuit |
| Whether the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction to review denial of sanctions | Melvin: raises constitutional violations (Fifth Amendment) to invoke appellate jurisdiction | Government: sanction rulings are factual; constitutional claims were not raised below and thus waived | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because appeal raises factual issues and constitutional arguments were waived |
| Whether alleged Fifth Amendment claims (liberty/equal protection) were presented properly | Melvin: filing and deletions violated liberty and equal protection rights | Respondent: constitutional arguments were not presented to Veterans Court; record lacks evidence of violation | Not considered on merits due to waiver; even if considered, record does not support constitutional violation |
| Whether the Court should decide broader question of Veterans Court jurisdiction over certain medical benefits | Melvin: asks Federal Circuit to declare Veterans Court lacks jurisdiction over some medical benefits | Respondent: issue unrelated to the dismissed writ and effectively seeks advisory opinion | Denied — request amounts to an advisory opinion; federal courts lack jurisdiction to issue advisory opinions |
Key Cases Cited
- Charles v. Shinseki, 587 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (failure to raise an argument below results in waiver on appeal)
- Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968) (federal courts will not render advisory opinions)
- Hayburn’s Case, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 409 (1792) (early precedent rejecting advisory opinions by federal courts)