Hinojosa

Court of Claims

Hinojosa

553 F.2d 104, 212 Ct. Cl. 596, 1977 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 146, 1977 WL 25825

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedJanuary 27, 1977

DocketNo. 270-76

StatusPublished

This text of 553 F.2d 104 (Hinojosa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hinojosa, 553 F.2d 104, 212 Ct. Cl. 596, 1977 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 146, 1977 WL 25825 (cc 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

“Defendant moves for dismissal of the petition in this civilian pay case on the jurisdictional ground that plaintiff did not file the suit within six years of the accrual of his claim, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2501. Plaintiff’s employment in the Department of Agriculture was terminated on July 11, 1969. He pursued an administrative remedy on grounds of racial discrimination, and a decision of the Civil Service Commission Board of Appeals and Review, dated June 9, 1970, adverse to him, reflects the final exhaustion of administrative remedies. He filed the suit here on July 6,1976. Plaintiff has [597]*597not responded to the motion and any response would now be out of time. Therefore, we have nothing before us to suggest the existence of any tolling period, even such a brief one as would suffice under the facts stated.

“Accordingly, upon consideration of the petition, the motion, and the supporting document, but without oral argument, it is ordered

“that the defendant’s motion is granted and the petition is dismissed.”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

“Defendant moves for dismissal of the petition in this civilian pay case on the jurisdictional ground that plaintiff did not file the suit within six years of the accrual of his claim, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2501. Plaintiff’s employment in the Department of Agriculture was terminated on July 11, 1969. He pursued an administrative remedy on grounds of racial discrimination, and a decision of the Civil Service Commission Board of Appeals and Review, dated June 9, 1970, adverse to him, reflects the final exhaustion of administrative remedies. He filed the suit here on July 6,1976. Plaintiff has [597]*597not responded to the motion and any response would now be out of time. Therefore, we have nothing before us to suggest the existence of any tolling period, even such a brief one as would suffice under the facts stated.

“Accordingly, upon consideration of the petition, the motion, and the supporting document, but without oral argument, it is ordered

“that the defendant’s motion is granted and the petition is dismissed.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

553 F.2d 104, 212 Ct. Cl. 596, 1977 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 146, 1977 WL 25825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinojosa-cc-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack