OLIVA v. USA, No. 1:2018cv00104 - Document 11 (Fed. Cl. 2018)
Court Description: UNREPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER granting 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; granting in part and denying in part 8 Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(6); and directing plaintiff to file a Notice re: pro b ono attorney referral program by 8/17/18; and parties to file a Joint Status Report by 8/17/2018 . signed by Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby.(dls) Service on parties made. (Plaintiff served via certified mail; Article No. 7016 3010 0000 4308 4720)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
OLIVA v. USA Doc. 11 ffiffi[ffigru,-&t lln tltt @nftr! btsttg [,turt of feltrsl No. 18-104C Filed July 18,2018 NOT FOR PUBLICATION @lsims FILED 1gg I B 20tB U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS STEVEN J. OLIVA. Pro se; RCFC l2(b)(6); Failure to State a Claim; Breach of Contract; In Forma Pauperis. Plaintiff, THE I.JNITED STATES, Defendant. Steven J. Oliva,Fair Oaks Ranch, TX, plaintiffpro se. David R. Pehlke,Trial Attomey, Elizabeth M. Hosford, Assistant Director, Robert E' Kirschman, -/r., Director, Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attomey General, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRIGGSBY. Judge I, INTRODUCTION Plaintiff pro se, Steven J. Oliva, brings this action to recover monetary damages from the government in connection with an alleged breach of an Equal Employment Opportunity C'EEO") settlement agreement (the "settlement Agreement") by and between plaintiff and the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (the "Y A"), See generally Compl The government has moved to dismiss this matter for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) ofthe Rules of the United States Court ofFederal Claims ("RCFC"). See generally Def. Mot. Plaintiffhas also moved to proceed in this ma$et informa pauperis' See generally PL IFP Mot. ?0r,b 301,0 8000 qlB6 q?e0 Dockets.Justia.com For the reasons discussed below, the Court: (1) GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN- PART the government's motion to dismiss and (2) GRANTS plaintiff s motion to proceed in Jbrma pauperis. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUNDI A. Factual Background In this action, plaintiff pro se, Steven J. Oliva, seeks to recover certain relocation incentive payments from the govemment in connection with the alleged breach of the Settlement Agreement that he entered into with the VA on or about January 3 0, 201 5. See generally Compl.; see also id. at Ex. 1 at 1-2. In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that the VA breached the Seltlement Agreement on two occasions. Compl. at breached the agreement in March 2. First, plaintiff alleges that the VA 20i5, when the agency "provided a reference which included the disclosure of [a letter of reprimand that plaintiff received in January 2015]." Id. Second, plaintiff alleges that the VA also breached the Settlement Agreement in February 2016, when the agency provided his prospective employer with: (l) information that plaintiff "was ona 'l'emporary Duty Assignment;" (2) the identity of plaintiffs current supervisor-Floretta Hardmon; and (3) the contact information for Ms. Hardmon. 1d. Plaintiff further alleges that, as a result ofthese breaches, he lost the opportunity to secure two different employment positions "that would have included relocation incentives and advancement of his career." Id. at 3. As relief, plaintiff seeks to recover the "payment of [the] relocation incentives [that] he would have received ifnot for the two instances ofthe agency breaching the [Settlement Agreement,]" in the amount of $1'12,628.00. 1d. at Prayer for Relief; see also Civil Cover l. Sheet. The Settlement Agreement In January 2015, plaintiff received a letter of reprimand for accusing a supervisor ofpreselecting an applicant for a position. Compl. at 2; Def. Mot. at 2. On January 30, 2015, plaintiff I The facts recited in this Memorandum Opinion and Order are taken from the complaint ("Compl."), the government's motion to dismiss ("Def. Mot."), and plaintifPs response to the government's motion to dismiss ("P1. Resp."). Unless otherwise noted, the facts recited herein are undisputed. entered into the Settlement Agreement with the VA to resolve a formal grievance that he brought after receiving the letter of reprimand. Compl. at 2. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, plaintiff agreed to withdraw his informal EEO complaint and to consider his formal grievance resolved in exchange for the VA's commitment to undertake the remedial measures delineated in the Settlement Agreement. Id. at 2,8x.7 at 1-2. Among the remedial measures that the VA would undertake, the VA agreed to: [Provide a] written reference for Mr. Oliva and assurance of a positive verbal reference, if requested-A written reference will be provided by Mr. Eitutis' Should Mr. Eitutis be asked to provide a verbal reference, he will not mention the retracted Reprimand and will limit information provided to that set forth in the written reference. Id. at Ex. 1 aI l. 2. The March 2015 Breach Plaintiff alleges that in March 2015, the VA provided a reference which included the disclosure of the January 2015 letter of reprimand.2 Id. at2. Plaintiff further alleges that the VA breached the Settlement Agreement when the agency disclosed the letter of reprimand to a potential employer. 1d. In 2015, plaintiff pursued a claim with the vA's office of Resolution Management alleging that the VA breached the Settlement Agreement by disclosing the letter of reprimand. 1d The office of Resolution Management determined that the vA breached the Settlement Agreement in this regard. Id. at2,Ex. I at 1. But, the Office of Resolution Management also found that the Settlement Agreement was voidable, because the agreement did not contain certain language contained in the Older Workers Benefits Protection Act. Id. atEx. I at 1; see also 29 IJ .5.C. S 626(0(2). And so, the VA offered plaintiff the option to either elect to void the plaintiff has also attached to the complaint several emails regarding contacts by either Mr. Eitutis, or Ms. Hardmon and plaintiffs prospective employers. compl. Ex. 1at4-6. In a February 12,2016, email from Mr. Eitutis toplaintiff, Mr. Eitutis confirms that he had been contacted by one of plaintiff s prospective employirs for a reference. Id. atEx.1 at 5. A February 24,2016, email from Ms. Hardmon io plaintiff also states that one of plaintiffls prospective employers had contacted her and that Ms. Haidmon had provided a positive referen ce. Id. atEx.I at 5-6. Lastly, an April22,20l6, email from one of plaintiff s piospective irnployers to plaintiff states that the prospective employer leamed during the reference check that Ms. Hardmon was plaintiffs current supervisor. Id. at Ex l at 5' 2 Settlement Agreement and to pursue an EEO claim, or to elect to ratify the Settlement Agreement and to seek specific performance as a remedy. Compl. Ex. 1 at 1. After plaintiff elected to ratifu the Settlement Agreement, the parties ratified the agreement on 3. JluJy 7,2015. Id. The February 2016 Breach Thereafter, plaintiff continued his I at 1-3. In this Resp. Ex. effoff to secure future employment. See id. at2;PL regard, plaintiff alleges that the VA breached the Settlement Agreement again in February 2016, by informing a potential employer that plaintiff was on a temporary duty assignment and that plaintiff s current supervisor was Floretta Hardmon, and by providing Ms. Hardmon's contact information. Compl. at 2. Plaintiff also alleges that the VA breached the Settlement Agreement when Ms. Hardmon provided an employment reference for plaintiff "which was not in accordance with the written reference," because Ms. Hardmon was not a person designated to provide this reference under the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Id. And so, plaintiff contends that he "was not selecled for the position ofHealthcare Administrator due to the evasive employment reference check." rd. 4, The Relocation Incentive Regulations Also relevant to this breach of contract dispute, the Office ofPersonnel Management (.'OPM') has promulgated regulations goveming the payment of relocation incentives for federal employees. See generally 5 C.F.R. $$ 575.201,e1 seq. Under these regulations, an agency may pay a relocation incentive to a current employee who must relocate to accept a position in a different geographic area ifthe agency determines that the position is likely be difficult to the absence ofan incentive. 5 C.F.R. S 575.201. Specifically, a relocation incentive may be paid to an employee who- (1) Must relocate to a different geographic area (permanently or temporarily) to accept a covered position in an agency when the position is likely to be difficult to fill; and (2) Is an employee of the federal govemment immediately before the relocation. See 5 C.F.R. $ 575.205(a). fill in These regulations also provide that, before paying such a relocation incentive, an agency must establish a relocation incentive plan which includes, among other things, the required documentation for determining that a position is likely to be difficult to fill and the requirements for determining the amount of the relocation incentive. 5 C.F.R. $ 575.207(a). In addition, the regulations require that the authorized agency official review and approve the relocation incentive determination before the agency pays the incentive. 5 C.F.R. $ 575.207(b).3 B. Procedural History Plaintiff commenced this action on January 22,2018. 22,2018, plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in See generally Compl. On January forma pauperis. See generally Pl. IFP Mot. On April 23,2018, the government filed a motion to dismiss this matter, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(6). See generally Def. Mot. On May 3,2018, plaintiff filed a response and opposition to the govemment's motion to dismiss. See generally Pl. Resp. On May 17, 2018, the government filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss. See generally Def. Reply. These matters having been III, fully briefed, the Court resolves the pending motions' LEGAL STANDARDS A. Pra Se Litigants Plaintiff is proceeding in this matterpro se, without the benefit ofcounsel. Andso,the Court applies the pleading requirements leniently. Beriont v. GTE Labs., lnc.,535 F.App'x919, 925-26 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp.,50l F.3d 1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). When determining whether a complaint fiedby a pro se plaintiff is sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss, this Court affords more leeway under the rules toprd se plaintiffs than plaintiffs who are represented by counsel. See Haines v. Kerner,404U'S.519'520'925- Ct. 594-96 (1972) (holding that pro se complaints, "however inartfully pleaded," are held to ,'less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"); Matthev)s v. United States, 750 F.3d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2014). But, there "is no duty on the part of the trial court to r The regulations also require that an intended recipient of a relocation incentive agree in writing to a specified period of employment with the agency before the agency can pay the relocation incentive. C.F.R. $ s75.210(a). 5 create a claim which [the plaintiffJ has not spelled out in his pleading." Lengen v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 317, 328 (2011) (brackets existing) (intemal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Scogin v. United States,33 Fed. Cl. 285,293 (1995)). Wh\le "a pro se plaintiffis held to a Iess stringent standard than that of a plaintiff represented by an altomey . . . the pro se plaintiff, nevertheless, bears the burden ofestablishing the Court's jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence." Riles v. United States,93 Fed. Cl. 163, 165(2010)(citingTaylorv.UnitedStates,303F.3d1357,1359(Fed.Cir.2002)). Andso, the Court may excuse ambiguities, but not defects, in the complaint. See Colbert v. United States,6lT F. App'x 981, 983 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Demes v. United States,52 Fed. Cl. 365, 368 (2002) ("[T]he leniency afforded pro se litigants with respect to mere formalities does not relieve them ofjurisdictional requirements."). B. RCFC l2(bx6) When deciding a motion to dismiss based upon failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to RCFC 12(bX6), this Court must assume that all undisputed facts alleged in the complaint are true and draw all reasonable inferences in the non-movant's favor. Erickson v. Pardus,55l U.S. 89,94 (2007); see also RCFC l2(b)(6). To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to RCFC 12(bX6), a complaint must contain facts sufficient to "state a claim to reliefthat is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,550 U.S. 544,570 (2007); see also Ashcrofr v. Iqbal,556 U.S. 662,678 (2009). And so, when the complaint fails to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face," the Court must dismiss the complaint. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. On the other hand, "[w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity" and determine whether it is plausible, based upon these facts, to find against defendant. Id. at679. C. Jurisdiction And Breach Of Contract Claims Under the Tucker Act, the Court possesses subject-matter jurisdiction to consider express or implied-in-fact contract claims against the United States. See Aboo v. Uniled States, 86 Fed. Cl. 618, 626-27 (2009). Plaintiff bears the burden of proving the existence of a contract with the United States and he must demonstrate that there is "something more than a cloud of evidence that could be consistent with a contract to prove a contract and enlorceable contract rights." D & N Bankv. United States,33l F.3d 1374, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003). To pursue a breach of contract claim against the United States under the Tucker Act, a plaintiffmust have privity of contract with the United States. Flexfab, L.L.C. v. United States, 424 F.3d 1254, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations omitted) ("[T]he 'govemment consents to be sued only by those with whom it has privity of contract. "'). Plaintiff must also support his contract claim with well-pleaded allegations going to each element of a contract. See Crewzers Fire Crew Transp., Inc. v. United Stdtes,741 F.3d 1380, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that to invoke thejurisdiction of this Court under the Tucker Act, a plaintiff must present a well-pleaded allegation that its claims arose out ofa valid contract with the United States); see a/so RCFC 9(k) ("ln pleading a claim founded on a contract or treaty, a party must identify the substantive provisions ofthe contract or treaty on which the party relies."); Gonzalez-McCaulley Inv. Grp., Inc. v. United Stales, 93 Fed. CI. 710, 715 (2010). The requirements for establishing a contract with the United States are identical for express and implied-in-fact contracts. See Night Vision Corp. v. United States,469 F.3d1369, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Huntington Promotional & Supply, L.L.C. v. United States, I 14 Fed. Cl. 760,767 (2014) ("The elements are the same for an express or implied-in-fact contract. . . ."). Specifically, a plaintiff must show: (1) mutuality of intent; (2) consideration; (3) lack of ambiguity in the offer and acceptance; and (4) actual authority to bind the govemment in contract on the part of the govemment official whose conduct is relied upon. Kam'Almaz v. [Jnited Stdtes,682 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also Trauma Serv. Grp. v. United States,l04 F.3d 1321, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A govemment official's authority to bind the United States must be express or implied. Roy v. United States,38 Fed. Cl. 184, 188-89 (1997), dismissed, 124 F .3d 224 (Fed. Cir. 1997). And so, "the [g]ovemment, unlike private parties, cannot be bound by the apparent authority of its agents." Id. at 187. Specifically relevant to this matter, the United States Court ofAppeals for the Federal Circuit has held "that Tucker Act jurisdiction may be exercised in a suit alleging breach ofa Title VII settlement agreement." Holmes v. United States,657 F.3d 1303,1312 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("We do not view Title VII's comprehensive scheme as a bar jurisdiction."). The Federal Circuit has also held that, "when to the exercise of [Tucker Act] a breach of contract claim is brought in [this Court], the plaintiff comes armed with the presumption that money damages are available, so that normally no further inquiry is required [to establish subject-matter jurisdictionl." Id. at1314. But, the Federal Circuit has recognized that that the mere existence of a contract does not always means that Tucker Act jurisdiction exists. 1d. For example, a contract that expressly disavows money damages would not give rise to Tucker Act jurisdiction. .ld. Similarly, a Title VII settlement agreement that involves purely nonmonetaxy relief would not give rise to Tucker Act jurisdiction. Id. at 1315. And so, the Court may require a demonstration that a settlement agreement could fairly be interpreted as contemplating money damages in the event of breach, to establish subjecfmatter jurisdiction. /d. To that end, the Federal Circuit has held that a settlement agreement that inherently relates to monetary compensation, "through relationship to [a plaintiff s] future employment," contemplates money damages in the event of brcach. Id' at 1316. The absence ofany language in a settlement agreement indicating that the parties did not intend for money damages to be available in the event ofa breach also shows that such an agteement contemplates the payment of money damages in the event of a breach. Iv. 1d. LEGALANALYSM The govemment has moved to dismiss this matter pursuant to RCFC l2(bX6), upon the grounds that: (1) plaintiff fails to state a plausible claim to recover relocation incentive payments and (2) plaintiff fails to plausibly allege that the VA breached the Settlement Agreement by disclosing his letter of reprimand and failing to provide plaintiff with ajob reference in the manner specified by the Settlement Agreement. ,see Del Mot. at 6-9. plaintiff counters in his response and opposition to the govemment's motion to dismiss that he has alleged viable claims to recover relocation incentive payments and for breach of contract in the complaint, because relocation incentives were authorized for the employment opportunities that he maintains have been lost due to the VA's actions. Pl.Resp.atl-2. Plaintiff also contends that the VA's decision to disclose his temporary duty assignment resulted in plaintiffs loss of an employment opportunity. 1d. And so, plaintiff requests that the Court deny the government's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has also moved to proceed in this matter IFP Mot. in forma pauperis. See generally Pl' For the reasons discussed below, the most generous reading ofthe complaint shows that plaintiffhas not stated a plausible claim to recover relocation incentive payments from the govemment. Plaintiff has, however, plausibly alleged that the government breached the Settlement Agreement by disclosing his letter of rcprimand-and the fact that plaintiff was on a temporary duty assignment-and that these alleged breaches resulted in the loss of future employment opportunities. In addition, plaintiff has shown that he satisfies the statutory requirements to proceed in this matter without paying the Court's filing fee. And so, for the reasons discussed below, the Court: (1) GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART the government's motion to dismiss and (2) GRANTS plaintiff s motion to proceed informa pauperis. RCFC 12(bX1). A. The Court May Consider Plaintiff s Breach Of Contract Claims As a preliminary matter, the Court possesses subject-matter jurisdiction to consider plaintiff s breach of contract claims arising under the Settlement Agreement. In this action, plaintiffseeks to recover relocation incentive payments due to the govemment's alleged material breaches of the Settlement Agreement that he entered into with the vA to resolve certain employment discrimination claims, See generally Compl.; see also id. atEx. 1 at 1-2; Def' Mot' Ex. I at 1-2. The l]nited States Court ofAppeals for the Federal Circuit has held "that Tucker Act jurisdiction may be exercised in a suit alleging breach of a Title VII settlement agreement." Holmes,657 F.3d at 1312. The Federal Circuit has also held that a settlement agreement that inherently relates to monetary compensation, "through relationship to [a plaintiffs] future employment," contemplates money damages in the event of breach and may form the basis for establishing the Court's jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. Id. at 1316. A review ofthe Settlement Agreement at issue in this case makes clear that this agreement contains provisions that inherently relate to monetary compensation through relationship to plaintiff s efforts to secure future employment. The settlement Agreement provides that, among other things, the VA would provide a *ritten reference for Mr. Oliva "and the assurance ofa positive verbal reference, ifrequested." Def. Mot. Ex. court finds that the settlement Agreement relates to plaintiff s I at2. Because the efforts to secure future employment and, thus, contemplates money damages in the event ofa breach of that agreement, the Court may consider plaintiff s breach of contract clums. Holmes,657 F.3d at 1316.4 B. Plaintiff Fails To State A Plausible Claim For Relocation Incentives Tuming to the merits of plaintiff s claims, a careful review of the complaint makes clear that plaintiff fails to plausibly allege that he is entitled to recover relocation incentive payments in this action. Plaintiff seeks to recover $172,628.00 in relocation incentive payments that he would have allegedly received if selected for two employment opportunities with the VA. Compl. at 3; see generally Civil Cover Sheet. In his response and opposition to the govemment's motion to dismiss, plaintiff argues that he states a plausible claim to recover these payments, because the position descriptions for the two employment opportunities-a VA health system administrator position based in Greenville, SC and a position based in El Paso Tx-state VA health system administrator that relocation expenses are authorized, or may be authorized, for these positions. Pl. Resp. at 1, Ex. I at 1-2. Plaintiff does not, however, allege any facts in the complaint to show that he would have actually received relocation incentive payments had he secured either ofthese employment opportunities. See generally Compl. Indeed, as the govemment correctly notes in its motion to dismiss, the OPM regulations that govem the authorization and payment of relocation incentives make clear that the fact that relocation incentives are authorized for a particular employment opportunity, alone, is not sufficient to demonstrate that such incentives would have actually been paid to plaintiff. DelMot.at6. Rather, these regulations provide that the payment ofrelocation incentives must be made on a case-by-case basis and the regulations also require that the sovemment establish a relocation incentive plan, and determine the amount ofthe relocation 4 Plaintiff s employment discrimination claims appear to be based upon the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (the.,ADEA"). Def.Ex.2at1-2. Similar to Title VII employment discrimination claims, ADEA claims are enforced and reviewed by the EEOC and subject to judicial review by the tl.S. district courts. See 29 U.S.C. g 633a(b) and (c). Additionally, the Court notes that it does not possess subject-matter jurisdiction to consider plaintiff s criminal law claim that the selecting official for one of the positions to which plaintiffapplied violated Title 18, United States Code, Sections l00l and 150'1. Joshua v. UnitedStates,lT F.3d 378,379 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 10 incentives, before authorizing the payment ofany relocation incentives. See 5 C.F.R. $$ 57 5.205; 5'/ 5.207 (a); and 575.208(a)(1). Because plaintiff alleges no facts in the complaint to show that he was eligible to receive relocation incentives under the OPM's regulations, plaintiffs claim to recover such incentives is speculative at best. ,See generally Compl. Given this, the Court must dismiss plaintiff s claim for lost relocation incentives, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(6). C. Plaintiff Plausibly Alleges Breach Of Contract Claims The Court is less persuaded by the govemment's argument that the Court should dismiss plaintiff s breach ofcontract claims based upon the VA's alleged breach ofthe Settlemenl Agreement in March 2015 and February 2016. First, a careful reading of the complaint shows that plaintiff states a plausible breach of contract claim based upon the VA's alleged failure to provide references in the manner prescribed by the Settlement Agreement and the agency's disclosure ofthe fact that plaintiff was on a temporary duty assignment. In this regard, plaintiff clearly alleges in the complaint that he ,,was not selected for the position of Healthcare Administrator due to the evasive employment reference check." Compl. at2. And so, plaintiff sufficiently alleges that the VA's breach of the Settlement Agreement, by failing to provide a reference in the manner prescribed by the settlement Agreement, resulted in his loss of an employment opportunity. Id.; see also Pl. Resp. aI2-4. The govemment argues, nonetheless, that plaintiff has not stated a plausible breach of contract claim, because thejob references that the VA provided were either neutral or positive. Def. Mot. at I . But, even if the Court accepts the govemment's representation in this regard as true, plaintiff persuasively argues that the undisputed fact that the incorrect individual provided this job reference-and that the reference disclosed that plaintiff was serving in a temporary duty assignment-co uld have negatively impacted plaintiff s efforts to secure future employment. Pl. Resp. at 2. The undisputed fact that the settlement Agreement requires that plaintiff s original job reference also suggests that the VA recognized that allowing Ms. Hardmon to provide the reference could negatively impact plaintiff s efforts to supervisor-Mr. Eitutis-provide the 1l secure future employment. See generally Compl.; Def. Mot.; see also Def , Mot. Ex. 1 at 2. Given this, the Court declines to dismiss plaintiffs breach of contract claim based upon the February 2016 breach of the Settlement Agreement. RCFC 12(bX6). Plaintiff similarly states a plausible claim that the VA breached the Settlement Agreement in March 2015, when the agency disclosed his letter of reprimand to a potential employer. Compl. at 2. In this regard, there is no dispute that the VA's Office of Resolution Management determined that the VA breached the Settlement Agreement by making this disclosure. Id.;Def. Mot. at 8; Def. Mot. Ex.2 at4. The govemment's argument that plaintiff fails to explain how the discloswe of the letter of reprimand resulted in the loss of a job offer is also misguided. Def. Mot. at 8. As plaintiff argues in his response and opposition to the government's motion to dismiss, the letter of reprimand was an adverse personnel action and the disclosure of this letter to a potential employer certainly couldhave negatively impacted plaintiff s prospects for future employment. pl. Resp. at 2. Given this, plaintiffhas at least plausibly alleged that the disclosure of the letter of reprimand resulted in his loss of future employment opportunities' Because plaintiff has plausibly alleged in the complaint that the vA breached the in his settlement Agreement in March 2015 and February 2016, and that these breaches resulted loss of employment opportunities, the court declines to dismiss plaintiffs breach of contract claims. D. The Court Grants Plaintiffs' Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis As a final matter, plaintiff has moved to proceed in this matler informa pauperis' see generallyPI.IFP Mot. The court may authorize the commencement of a lawsuit without prepayment of fees when a plaintiff submits an affidavit including a statement ofall assets, a action and a declaration that he is unable to pay the fees, and a statement ofthe nature of the In his beliefthat he is entitled to redress. ,See 28 U.S.C. $ 19i5(a)(1); see also ld $ 2503(d)' assets and application for waiver ofthe Court's filing fee, plaintiff provides a statement ofhis fees' See and states that "because of [his] poverty, [he is] unable to pay" the Courts liabilities generally PI.IFP Mot. Because the court finds that plaintiff satisfies the statutory requirements toproceedinformapauperis,theCourtGRANTSplaintiffsmotiontoptoceedinforma pauperls. t2 V. CONCLUSION In sum, the most generous reading ofthe complaint makes clear that plaintiff fails to state a plausible claim to recover relocation incentive payments. Plaintiffs has, however, plausibly alleged that the VA breached the Settlement Agreement in March 2015 and February 2016, and that these alleged breaches resulted in his loss of future employment opportunities. In addition, plaintiffhas shown that he satisfies the statutory requirements to proceed in this matter without paying the Court's filing fee. And so, for the foregoing reasons, the Court: L GRANTS the govemment's motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiff recover relocation incentive payments; 2. DENIES the government's motion to dismiss with respect to plaintifPs breach of contract claims regarding the March 2015 and February 2016 breaches; and 3. GRANTS plaintiff s motion to proceed in s claim to forma pauperis- The Court further requests that plaintiff consent to the Court's refenal ofthis case to the court of Federal claims Bar Association Pro Bono/Atlomey Refenal Pilot Program for the potential representation ofplaintiffby counsel. In the event that plaintiff consents to such referral, the Court makes no representation that the Bar Association will be successful in identifying possible pro 6ono counsel for plaintiff. If the Bar Association is able to identiff possible counsel, plaintiffis not obligated to engage any particular attomey, nor is an attomey obligated to represent plaintiff. The Court does not endorse representation by any individual attomey. All decisions concerning representation, if any, will be by mutual agreement between plaintiff and an attomey. And so, it is further ORDERED that on or before August 17' 2018: shall FILE a notice indicating whether he consents to referral ofthis case to the Court of Federal Claims Bar Association Pro Bono/Attorney Referral Pilot Program; and 1. Plaintiff 2. The parties shall FILE a joint status report setting forth a proposed schedule for the filing of the government's answer and for discovery. IJ IT IS SO ORDERED. t4
]]>
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.
