DIXON v. UNITED STATES NAVY RETIREMENT PROGRAM, No. 1:2009cv00973 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 5/7/09. (ls, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
,- FILED MAY 26 2009 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Ernest L. Dixon, Clerk, U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 09 0973 ) United States Navy Retirement Program, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff has filed apro se complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In his very brief pro se complaint, the plaintiff, who identifies himself as a retired admiral who served in the United States Navy from 1955 until 1986, appears to seek "retroactive reinstatement" of his "retirement annuity along with my one hundred percent disability." Compi. at 1 (spelling altered). To the extent that plaintiffs complaint presents a claim against the United States founded upon any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, such as the Department of the Navy, that mandates payment to the plaintiff, this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, vests jurisdiction of such claims with the Court of Federal Claims. See Janaskie v. United States, 77 Fed. CI. 654, 657 (2007). To the extent that plaintiffs complaint presents a claim for veteran's disability benefits, such claims must be presented to the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, whose decision may be appealed first to the Board of Veterans Appeals, then to the Court of j Appeals for Veterans Claims, and thereafter to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Id at 657-58 (citing 38 U.S.C. §§ 5101(a); 7104(a);7252(a); 7292(a). Again, this court has no subject matter jurisdiction over such claims. Accordingly, this complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion. Date: 1-!Mr 2t?I1 -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
