Dixon v. United States Navy Retirement Program

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: May 26, 2009
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2009-0973
• Status: Published

Opinion

,-

FILED MAY 26 2009 Clerk, U.S. District and UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Bankruptcy Courts FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Ernest L. Dixon, ) ) 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-