Phillips

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

CLINT PHILLIPS, III, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 4:26-cv-00957 RHH

)

UNITED STATES, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff Clint Phillips, III, a frequent pro se and in forma pauperis litigant, has filed a

Complaint against the United States and Stribling Law Firm, see ECF 1, as well as an Application

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF 2.1 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Application

and finds that he is unable to afford the $405 filing fee. The Court will therefore grant Plaintiff

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff’s request for leave to pay the filing fee over time

will be denied as moot. Finally, having reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court will dismiss

this action for lack of jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

The Complaint

Plaintiff states that in March of 2026, his Veterans Administration (VA) Fiduciary (or

Representative Payee), who appears to work at the Stribling Law Firm in New Orleans,

Louisiana, failed to pay filing fees for an action he filed in St. Louis County Circuit Court.

Plaintiff asserts that his fiduciary at Stribling Law Firm is not doing what is in his best interests

or doing what he “desires, wants, needs. . .” [ECF No. 1 at 5]. Plaintiff believes the Stribling

1 Plaintiff’s Application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis also includes a motion to pay his filing fee

in partial payments. He claims that his V.A. Representative is “paying below the poverty threshold of $15

per hr. (minimum wage).” [ECF No. 2].

Law Firm is acting in violation of his rights in failing to pay for his needs, or in failing to pay for

him below the minimum hourly wage of $15 per hour. He also complains that his fiduciary failed

to fix his plumbing and deprived him of $250 per week.

In his request for relief, Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of seven million dollars for

purported “pain, suffering, humiliation, and disgrace with malice.” [ECF No. 1 at 5].

Legal Standard

This Court must screen complaints filed in forma pauperis and must dismiss any action

that is frivolous, among other grounds. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A complaint is frivolous

when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325

(1989). The term “frivolous” encompasses “not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also

the fanciful factual allegation.” Id. Accordingly, the Court may dismiss “those claims whose

factual contentions are clearly baseless,” id. at 327, including those allegations that are

“fantastic” or “delusional.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32–33 (1992) (quoting Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 328). Although “[a]n in forma pauperis complaint may not be dismissed . . . simply

because the [C]ourt finds the plaintiff’s allegations unlikely,” “a finding of factual frivolousness

is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible,

whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Id. at 33.

Discussion

Plaintiff Clint Phillips, III, brings this civil action against the United States of America

and the Stribling Law Firm, who appears to have been assigned Plaintiff’s fiduciary by the

Secretary of Veterans Affairs under the Veterans Affairs Fiduciary Program.2 In this matter,

2 A fiduciary, or representative payee, is designated to receive and administer a veterans disability

benefits. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5502(a)(1):

Plaintiff appears to question the fiduciary’s ability to manage his VA benefits, and he complains

about the designated fiduciary, Stribling Law Firm.

The Court will first address Plaintiff’s claims against the United States of America.

Plaintiff purports to sue the United States, but he has failed to present any allegations against the

United States in the body of his Complaint. Thus, Plaintiff’s allegations against the United States

are subject to dismissal.3

Additionally, the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s allegations against the Stribling

Law Firm because the Veterans Judicial Review Act (VJRA) significantly limits the scope of this

Court's jurisdiction in cases involving VA benefits and the review and supervision of VA

fiduciaries. More specifically, the VJRA provides that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs “shall

[w]where it appears to the Secretary that the interest of the beneficiary would be served

thereby, payment of benefits under any law administered by the Secretary, may be made

directly to the beneficiary or to a relative or some other fiduciary for the use and benefit

of the beneficiary, regardless of any legal disability on the part of the beneficiary.

The federal regulations authorize the Department of Veterans Affairs to appoint the person or

entity best suited to receive benefits in a fiduciary capacity for a beneficiary who is incompetent

or under legal disability by reason of minority or court action, and beneficiary's dependents. See

Evans v. Greenfield Banking Co., 774 F.3d 1117, 1120 (7th Cir. 2014) citing 38 U.S.C. §

5502(a)(1) and 38 C.F.R. § 13.55(a). The VA Secretary's appointment decision falls under 38

U.S.C. § 511 and can be appealed to the Board of Veterans Appeals. Id. at 1121. The Secretary

also has congressional authority to supervise the fiduciaries. 38 U.S.C. § 5502(b). If the VA

Secretary estimates it necessary to protect the beneficiary's interests, the Secretary may require a

fiduciary to provide an accounting or may even terminate the appointment of a fiduciary and

appoint a successor fiduciary. See 38 C.F.R. § 13.100(a)(2). The authority also comprises the

ability to investigate claims of malfeasance and to take suitable action. Id.

3 Even if Plaintiff’s claims against the United States government were not subject to dismissal for failure

to state a claim, they would be subject to dismissal because the United States has sovereign immunity

from suit. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985). The doctrine of sovereign immunity

provides that the United States is immune from suit unless Congress has expressly waived the defense.

See, e.g., United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983) (“It is axiomatic that the United States may

not be sued without its consent and that the existence of consent is a prerequisite for jurisdiction.”);

Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 411-12 (1821) (“The universally received opinion is[ ] that no suit can be

commenced or prosecuted against the United States[.]”). Congress may waive sovereign immunity, but

any such waiver must be express. United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980). There is nothing in

the record to suggest the United States waived, or that Congress overrode, sovereign immunity here.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims against the United States in this instance are meritless.

decide all questions of law and fact necessary to a decision by the Secretary under a law that

affects the provision of benefits by the Secretary to veterans or the dependents or survivors of

veterans.” 38 U.S.C. § 511(a).

Subject to limited exceptions, the Secretary's decisions under § 511(a) “shall be final and

conclusive and may not be reviewed by any other official or by any court, whether by an action

in the nature of mandamus or otherwise.” Id. Where the VJRA applies, the district courts are

divested of jurisdiction; if the veteran disagrees with the Secretary's decision on any issue within

the purview of § 511(a), the veteran's recourse is limited to the “exclusive scheme for the review

of claims affecting veteran's benefits.” Andrews v. Sec'y, Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 845 F. App'x

880, 883 (11th Cir. 2021) (per curiam). This “exclusive scheme” requires the veteran to: (1) file

a claim with the VA's regional office; (2) appeal an unfavorable decision to the Board of

Veterans Appeals; (3) appeal that decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; and, (4)

if pure questions of law remain, appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit and, ultimately, the Supreme Court. See Henderson v. United States, 612 F. App'x 578,

579 (11th Cir. 2015) (per curiam).

Courts throughout the country, including the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, have

therefore concluded that the selection, supervision, and removal of fiduciaries pursuant to 38

U.S.C. §§ 5502 and 5507 are determinations made under laws that affect the provision of

benefits and thus implicate § 511(a). See, e.g., Shorette v. McDonough, 36 Vet. App. 297, 313

(2023) (holding that claim involving “VA's appointment and removal of a fiduciary” arose

“under a law that affects the provision of benefits” for purposes of determining jurisdiction);

Freeman v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 404, 417 (2011) (per curiam) (holding that “the statutory

framework authorizing the Secretary to appoint a fiduciary to handle VA benefits for an

incompetent veteran fall within the purview of section 511(a)”); Andrews, 845 F. App'x at 883

(“Section 5502, which governs payments to and supervision of fiduciaries, is a law affecting the

provision of veterans’ benefits.”); Evans v. Greenfield Banking Co., 774 F.3d 1117, 1124 (7th

Cir. 2014) (holding that court lacked jurisdiction over a complaint that amounted to “a challenge

to a federal fiduciary appointment and to veteran benefits distribution”); Henderson v. United

States, Civil Action No. 1:14-CV-0549 AT, 2014 WL 11456277, at *4 (N.D. Ga. July 31, 2014)

(collecting cases and finding that court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over claim

alleging that department of Veterans Affairs negligently distributed veteran's benefits to

improper fiduciary), aff'd 612 F. App'x 578 (11th Cir. 2015) (per curiam).

This case centers around Plaintiff’s contention that his VA fiduciary, the Stribling Law

Firm, failed to pay expenses that he believes should have been paid. Plaintiff seeks not only

restoration of those allegedly misappropriated benefits, but damages in excess of those funds. To

resolve Plaintiff’s claims in his favor, this Court would have to inquire into whether the VA

acted properly in appointing and supervising Plaintiff’s fiduciary – the Stribling Law Firm. As

described above, these are matters that arise under laws that affect the provision of VA benefits,

and Plaintiff’s claims thus necessarily implicate § 511(a). See, e.g., Henderson, 2014 WL

11456277, at *6 (finding that claim would implicate § 511(a) where it “solely seeks to recover

retroactive benefits previously awarded in effect to [fiduciary]”); Andrews, 845 F. App'x at 884

(holding that § 511(a) prohibited court from exercising jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims that

VA secretary negligently allowed fiduciary to receive payments in excess of statutorily

prescribed fee because claims would require the court “to review VA decisions that affect the

provision of benefits”). This Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s claims, and the

Complaint is subject to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).4

For the same reasons the Court deems the Complaint subject to dismissal, the Court is

“thoroughly convinced that there is no substantial question for review and that an appeal would

be futile.” Higgins v. Steele, 195 F.2d 366, 369 (8th Cir. 1952). The Court therefore certifies that

an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. See id.; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis [ECF 2] is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs request to pay the filing fee in partial

payments [ECF No. 2] is DENIED as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). A separate Order of Dismissal will be

entered with this Memorandum and Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [ECF

No. 3] is DENIED as moot.

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in

good faith.

Dated this 15" day of July, 2026. J a |

HENRY EDWARD AUTREY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4 This is not to say that Plaintiff has no recourse over his claims. If Plaintiff believes that his fiduciary is

acting incorrectly or in violation of VA regulations or the statute, he may be able to bring his claims

before the VA Regional Office.