Ruby

Court of Claims

Ruby

194 Ct. Cl. 1023, 1971 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 130, 1971 WL 4123

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedFebruary 5, 1971

DocketNo. 373-70

StatusPublished

This text of 194 Ct. Cl. 1023 (Ruby) 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

Ruby, 194 Ct. Cl. 1023, 1971 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 130, 1971 WL 4123 (cc 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

— Plaintiff, an enlisted man in the Navy, was issued an undesirable discharge on December 15,1931. He claims that the Navy was without authority to issue an undesirable discharge and he seeks back pay. This case comes before the court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment and plaintiff’s “notice” of default and request for entry of default. Upon consideration thereof, together with the responses in opposition thereto, without oral argument, the court concludes that plaintiff’s alleged claim is barred under the doctrine of res judicata, having been previously dismissed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (369 F. 2d 404 (9th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1011 (1967)) and in this court (189 Ct. Cl. 573 (1969), cert. denied. 397 U.S. 1058 (1970)), and also that his claim is barred by the statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2501. See Kirk v. United States, 164 Ct. Cl. 738 (1964) On February 5, 1971 the court denied plaintiff’s request for entry of default, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the petition. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was denied April 15,1971.

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

— Plaintiff, an enlisted man in the Navy, was issued an undesirable discharge on December 15,1931. He claims that the Navy was without authority to issue an undesirable discharge and he seeks back pay. This case comes before the court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment and plaintiff’s “notice” of default and request for entry of default. Upon consideration thereof, together with the responses in opposition thereto, without oral argument, the court concludes that plaintiff’s alleged claim is barred under the doctrine of res judicata, having been previously dismissed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (369 F. 2d 404 (9th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1011 (1967)) and in this court (189 Ct. Cl. 573 (1969), cert. denied. 397 U.S. 1058 (1970)), and also that his claim is barred by the statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2501. See Kirk v. United States, 164 Ct. Cl. 738 (1964) On February 5, 1971 the court denied plaintiff’s request for entry of default, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the petition. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was denied April 15,1971.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 Ct. Cl. 1023, 1971 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 130, 1971 WL 4123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruby-cc-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack