Opinion

Rasmussen v. Gray

Court
District Court, District of Columbia
Filed
Feb 10, 2015
Status
Published
On the bench
Judge Tanya S. Chutkan
Nature of suit
Civil
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 34.0%

review under DC. Code § 2—510 by District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Board decision denying payment of survivor annuity following death of claimant’s husband

How later courts described this case

  • review under DC. Code § 2—510 by District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Board decision denying payment of survivor annuity following death of claimant’s husband

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

FILED

FEB 1 fl 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Clerk. U.S. District & Bankruptcy

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Courts for the District of Columbia

MICHAEL JON RASMUSSEN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Case: 1:15—cv—00205

V' ) Assigned To : Unassigned

) Assign. Date : 2/10/2015

VINCENT GRAY, 6’1 01., ) Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiff 5 application to proceed in

forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. Plaintiff alleges that he “was unexpectedly

terminated on June 4, 2012,” Compl. at 2 (page numbers designated by the Court), and that

defendants have denied him retirement benefits notwithstanding his more than 37 years of

service as a firefighter and an emergency medical technician with the District of Columbia Fire

and EMS Department, see id. at 2-3. He asks that this Court order defendants “to pay [him] his

full retirement fund, with interest, and . . . full benefits associated with being fully retired[,] to

pay the amount of overtime lawsuit settlement money, in full with interest, and to pay for [his]

pain and suffering, in the amount of $10,000,000.00 . . . .” Id. at 3.

Missing from the complaint is a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the

Court’s jurisdiction depends as is required under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, and it does not appear that plaintiff has any recourse in the federal courts. See DC.

Code §§ 5—721 (directing Mayor to “consider all cases for the retirement of members and all

applications for annuities . . . subject to review and final determination by the District of

Columbia Retirement Board”), 5—722 (establishing Police and Firemen’s Retirement and Relief

Board), 5-743 (authorizing “District of Columbia Retirement Board . . . to determine and fix the

amount of the pension relief allowance”); Rife v. District of Columbia Police & Firefighters’

Retirement and Relief Bd. , 940 A.2d 964, 965 (DC. 2007) (review under DC. Code § 2—510 by

District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Board decision denying payment of survivor annuity

following death of claimant’s husband).

The complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An Order

consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

United S es District Judge

DATE: 61/ 9/19 “J

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.