King

Court of Claims

King

566 F.2d 1189, 214 Ct. Cl. 795, 1977 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 212

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedMay 27, 1977

DocketNo. 72-77

StatusPublished

This text of 566 F.2d 1189 (King) 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

King, 566 F.2d 1189, 214 Ct. Cl. 795, 1977 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 212 (cc 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

"This pro se petition (with several attachments) is difficult to understand, referring to a number of seemingly unrelated matters. The only one which could conceivably fall within the jurisdiction of this court is an allegedly "illegal discharge” "in the fiscal year 1966” from employment with the Federal Government. Defendant’s motion to dismiss supplies us with papers indicating that this could refer to either or both of two separations from the Government — one dismissal was from the Patent Office in 1964 which was upheld by the Board of Appeals and Review of the Civil Service Commission on March 16, 1966, while the other was from the Bureau of the Mint in January 1966. If plaintiff is referring to the first, his claim here is barred both by the six-year statute of limitations (28 U.S.C. § 2501) and by former adjudications of the same claim within the Second Circuit. James C. King v. United States Civil Service Commission, complaint dismissed, E.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 1974, order affirmed by the Court of Appeals, No. 74-2636, April 28, 1975. If plaintiff is referring to his separation from the Bureau of the Mint, that claim is also barred in this court by limitations.

"it is therefore ordered and concluded, without oral argument, that defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted and the petition is dismissed.”

On June 24, 1977 the court denied plaintiffs motion to vacate the foregoing order.

On October 3, 1977, plaintiffs petition for certiorari was denied.

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

"This pro se petition (with several attachments) is difficult to understand, referring to a number of seemingly unrelated matters. The only one which could conceivably fall within the jurisdiction of this court is an allegedly "illegal discharge” "in the fiscal year 1966” from employment with the Federal Government. Defendant’s motion to dismiss supplies us with papers indicating that this could refer to either or both of two separations from the Government — one dismissal was from the Patent Office in 1964 which was upheld by the Board of Appeals and Review of the Civil Service Commission on March 16, 1966, while the other was from the Bureau of the Mint in January 1966. If plaintiff is referring to the first, his claim here is barred both by the six-year statute of limitations (28 U.S.C. § 2501) and by former adjudications of the same claim within the Second Circuit. James C. King v. United States Civil Service Commission, complaint dismissed, E.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 1974, order affirmed by the Court of Appeals, No. 74-2636, April 28, 1975. If plaintiff is referring to his separation from the Bureau of the Mint, that claim is also barred in this court by limitations.

"it is therefore ordered and concluded, without oral argument, that defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted and the petition is dismissed.”

On June 24, 1977 the court denied plaintiffs motion to vacate the foregoing order.

On October 3, 1977, plaintiffs petition for certiorari was denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

566 F.2d 1189, 214 Ct. Cl. 795, 1977 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-cc-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack