SECOND DEFENSEThe Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Defendant U.S. Department of VeteransAffairs under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Section 1331 provides for federal subject matter jurisdiction incases against
federal officers who violate the constitutional rights of others.
Cronn v. Buffington
, 150 F.3d 538, 541-542 (5th Cir. 1998). It does not provide federal subject matter jurisdiction against a federal agency or the United States.
Izen v. Catalina,
398 F.3d 363, 367n.3 (5th Cir. 2005);
Brown v. Nationsbank Corp
., 188 F.3d 579, 590 (5th Cir. 1999).THIRD DEFENSEThe U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) values and respects all Veterans and their families’ right to a committal service that honors their faith tradition, if any. Defendants pleadPlaintiffs’ lack standing to interfere with Defendants’ efforts to honor and respect the religious preferences and rituals, if any, of the families of deceased Veterans in conjunction with their private committal services. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ lack standing to bring suit in a representationalcapacity on behalf of their members who, while acting as registered VA volunteers (
,“without compensation employees” of VA) who have agreed to abide by VA policies, seek toviolate VA policies by imposing their own religious views on the families of deceased Veteranswho have expressed differing or no religious preferences.FOURTH DEFENSEThe Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the allegations contained in the FirstAmended Complaint contain new Plaintiffs and new claims that do not “relate back” under Fed.R. Civ. P. 15(c) to the factual allegations of the Original Verified Complaint that were moot atthe time of filing of the First Amended Complaint.
Summit Office Park, Inc. v. U.S. Steel Corp.
,639 F.2d 1278, 1282 (5th Cir. 1968);
Williams v. United States
, 405 F.2d 234, 236 (5th Cir.1968).
Case 4:11-cv-01992 Document 22 Filed in TXSD on 07/15/11 Page 2 of 21