Opinion

Gregory v. United States General Services Administration

Court
District Court, District of Columbia
Filed
Apr 10, 2013
Status
Published
On the bench
Judge James E. Boasberg
Nature of suit
Civil
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 31.3%

The opinion

|w

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FILED

AFR 1 o 2013

Herbert Ellsworth Gregory, ) cl€l’k, U.S. District and

) B°"KFUD€CV Courts

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

United States General Services Administration, ) - n

)

Defendant. )

l\/IEMORANDUM CPINION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs pro se complaint and application to proceed

in forma pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiffs in forma pauperis application and will

dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. l2(h)(3) (requiring

dismissal "at any time" jurisdiction is found wanting).

Plaintiff, a resident of Alexandria, Virgina, sues the General Services Administration for

allegedly rescinding a conditional job offer. Citing Kloeckner v. Solis, l33 S.Ct. 596 (2012),

plaintiff claims that jurisdiction lies in this court because the Merit Systems Protection Board

("MSPB") denied his "mixed case appeal." Compl. at 8-l l. However, plaintiff has not

alleged that the decision was based on his membership in a protected class and the attached

administrative record belies such a claim. See Compl., Ex. l (MSPB Initial Decision describing

appeal as "alleging that the agency had breached a contract with him, and he had been subjected

to a suitability action"); Kloeckner, 133 S.Ct. at 604 (describing mixed cases as "those

appealable to the l\/ISPB and alleging discrimination" cognizable under the federal

antidiscrimination laws). Consequently, the Civil Service Retirement Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 8331 et

seq., provides the exclusive remedy for adjudicating plaintiffs claim. Fornaro v. Jarnes, 416

F.3d 63, 66 (D.C. Cir. 2005). "That regime provides for adjudication of all claims by OPM, 5

U.S.C. § 8347(b), appeal of adverse decisions by OPM to the MSPB, ia’. § 8347(d)(l), and

subsequent review of MSPB decisions in the Federal Circuit, id. § 7703(b)(l); 28 U.S.C. §

l295(a)(9)." Ia’. Since plaintiff claims to have exhausted those remedies, Compl. at 8-9, this

action will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

'7

’l<)/

/.

s Ijistrict Judge

DATE; Aprii\$ ,2013

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.