Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Frederick W. Richardson, Petitioner v. Department of Labor, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, et al.

IN THE

*

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

APR - 1 2026

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

FREDERICK W. RICHARDSON,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OWCP, et al

Respondent.

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Frederick W. Richardson

Petitioner pro se

2203 SE 181st Avenue

Vancouver, WA. 98683

(360) 487-0974

Frederick.Richardson@gmail.com

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether Congress may bar all judicial review of constitutional claims arising from

the administration of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, where sovereign

immunity, the prohibition on Bivens remedies, and FECA’s “alternative remedial

structure” leave federal employees with no forum to vindicate due-process violations

such as years-long delays in medical treatment.

LIST OF PARTIES

Petitioner is Frederick W. Richardson, an individual.

Respondents is U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Workers’ Compensation

Programs (OWCP); Sandra E. Tyus, Claims Examiner; Tracy A. Johnson, OWCP

Chief of Operations; Craig Dunn; Jane Doe; John Doe; and Jonas Malm, Claims

Examiner is an Agency.

Corporate Disclosure Statement

None of the Respondents is a corporation, and none has a parent corporation or

publicly traded stock.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTION PRESENTED........................................................................ i

LIST OF PARTIES.....................................................................................ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................iii

TABLE OF APPENDICES ....................

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITES............. .......................................... ................v

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI................................................ 1

OPINIONS BELOW...................................... ........................................... 1

JURISDICTION.................................... ................................................... 1

STATUTORY PROVISION................................................. ..................... 1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ..................... ............................................. 2-3

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION......................................... 3

I. The Decision Below eliminates all judicial review of Constitutional

claims under FECA Creating a Constitutional vacuum................. .... 3

n. The Ninth Circuit’s reliance on an “Alternative Remedial Structure”

Conflicts with Supreme Court precedent

.........................-...... 3-4

TIT. The Circuits are divided on whether FECA Bars Constitutional

Claims...................................................................

4

IV. The Question Presented is exceptionally important........................4

V. This case is an ideal vehicle......... *............................................ ,....*.5

CONCLUSION.............................................................

6

TABLE OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A - Ninth Circuit Memorandum Disposition, May 23, 2025,..Al

Ninth Circuit Order, November 13, 2025............................ A4

Ninth Circuit Mandate, November 21 2025,...................... A5

APPENDIX B -District Court Order, September 29, 2023............................Bl

District Court Judgment, September 29, 2023 ....................B12

APPENDIX C - United States Magistrate Judge

Report and Recommendation, June 15, 2022.Cl

Proposed Order Adopting Report and

Recommendation, June 15, 2022..................

Cll

APPENDIX D -Relevant Statutory Provisions

5 U.S. Code § 8101 - Definitions................................................ .DI

5 U.S. Code § 8128(b) - Review of award................................... JD6

28 U.S. Code § 1254 (1) - Court of Appeals; Certiorari;............... JD7

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Balser v. Dep’t of Justice, Office of the U.S. Trustee,

327 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2003)............................................................ A2

Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians,

476 U.S. 667(1986)...... ............................................................. .......3

Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367 (1983)..................................................4

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S.

388 (1971)........................................................................................... A3

Council of Ins. Agents & Brokers v. Molasky-Arman,

522 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 2008)...... .......................................................A2

Crowe v. Oregon State Bar, 989 F.3d 714 (2021)........... ................ A2

Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022)................................................ 3, 4, A3

Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, 561 U.S. 477

(2010).................................................................................................. 3,4

Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010).................................. A2

Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009)............................. A3

Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200 (1994).................. 4

Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988)................................................ 3

Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537 (2007)............................................ 4

Statutes

5U.S.C. §8101......................................................................... iv, 1,2, B2

5 U.S.C. § 8128(b)..................................................................... iv, 1, 2, B6

28 U.S.C. § 1254(1)..................................... .............................. iv, 1

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner Frederick W. Richardson respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to

review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

OPINIONS BELOW

The memorandum disposition of the court of appeals (Appendix A1-A3) was entered

on May 23, 2025. The order denying rehearing (Appendix A4) was entered on

November 13, 2025. The Mandate was issued on November 21, 2025 (Appendix A5).

The Order of the United States District Court for the Western District of

Washington dismissing the case (Appendix Bl- Bll) on September 29, 2023 and the

accompanying judgement (Appendix B12) was entered on September 29, 2023.

The District Court referred the motion to dismiss the amended complaint to the

Magistrate Court Judge pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 636(b). Filed June 15, 2022,

Dkt. 45 The Magistrate Judge recommends denying the Motion to Dismiss for lack

of subject matter Jurisdiction. (Appendix C1-C10) and the accompanying Proposed

Order of June 15, 2022, adopting the Report and Recommendation Dkt. 45-1,

(Appendix Cl 1)

JURISDICTION

The court of appeals entered judgment on May 23, 2025, and denied rehearing on

November 13, 2025. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). The

petition is timely under this Court’s rules and the extension granted by the Court.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Relevant. provisions of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et

seq., including 5 U.S.C. § 8101 and 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b), and 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1), are

reproduced in Appendix D.

1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A. Statutory Background

The Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA), 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq., provides

workers’ compensation benefits to federal employees injured in the performance of

duty. FECA vests exclusive authority in the Office of Workers’ Compensation

Programs (OWCP) to adjudicate claims and bars judicial review of benefit

determinations. 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b). FECA contains no provision authorizing judicial

review of constitutional claims arising from OWCP’s administration of the statute.

B. Factual Background

Petitioner Frederick W. Richardson sustained a work-related knee injury on August

27, 1991. He later filed a FECA claim and, between 2016 and 2022, repeatedly

sought medical treatment and related authorizations. During this period, OWCP

repeatedly delayed or failed to act on his requests, resulting in nearly seven years in

which he did not receive timely medical care. Petitioner alleges that these prolonged

delays caused permanent physical harm and violated his right to procedural due

process.

Because FECA provides no mechanism for judicial review of constitutional claims,

and OWCP’s administrative process does not permit constitutional challenges,

Petitioner had no forum in which to raise his due-process claim.

C. Proceedings in the District Court

Petitioner filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of

Washington, alleging that OWCP’s delays in processing his claim and authorizing

treatment violated his constitutional right to due process. He sought injunctive

relief, damages, and recognition of a constitutional remedy.

The District Court referred the motion to dismiss Petitioner’s amended complaint to

Chief Magistrate Court Judge pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 636(b). The Magistrate

Court Judge recommends denying the Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter

Jurisdiction but the District Court dismissed the complaint. It held that Petitioner

lacked standing to seek injunctive relief; that sovereign immunity barred damages

claims against OWCP; that Bivens relief was unavailable; and that FECA’s

“alternative remedial structure” foreclosed constitutional claims.

2

D. Proceedings in the Court of Appeals

The Ninth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished memorandum disposition. The court

held that Petitioner lacked standing for injunctive relief under City of Los Angeles

v. Lyons; that sovereign immunity barred damages claims; that Egbert v. Boule

foreclosed a Bivens remedy; and that FECA’s administrative scheme constituted an

“alternative remedial structure” that precluded judicial review of Petitioner’s

constitutional claim. As a result, no court addressed the merits of Petitioner’s

allegation that OWCP’s years-long delay in treatment violated due process.

Petitioner timely seeks a writ of certiorari.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

I. The Decision Below Eliminates All Judicial Review of Constitutional

Claims Under FECA, creating a Constitutional Vacuum This Court Has

Repeatedly Forbidden

The Ninth Circuit held that sovereign immunity bars damages; that Bivens is

unavailable; that Petitioner lacks standing to seek injunctive relief; and that

FECA’s “alternative remedial structure” forecloses constitutional claims. Taken

together, these holdings mean that no court—state or federal—may hear a

constitutional claim arising from OWCP’s administration of FECA.

This Court has repeatedly rejected statutory interpretations that would insulate

constitutional violations from judicial review. Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988);

Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667 (1986); Free

Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, 561 U.S. 477 (2010). Yet the decision below creates

exactly the kind of constitutional vacuum these cases forbid.

Under the Ninth Circuit’s approach, OWCP may delay medical treatment for years,

cause permanent, harm, and violate due process—all without any judicial forum to

review or remedy the violation. That result is incompatible with the Constitution’s

guarantee that rights must be enforceable.

n. The Ninth Circuit’s Reliance on an “Alternative Remedial Structure”

Conflicts with Supreme Court Precedent Requiring That Such Structures

Provide a Meaningful Remedy

The Ninth Circuit invoked Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022), to deny a Bivens

remedy, reasoning that FECA provides an “alternative remedial structure.” But

FECA provides:

no judicial review,

3

no constitutional review,

no damages remedy,

no injunctive relief,

no mechanism to address unconstitutional delay, and

no remedy for permanent harm caused by agency inaction.

An “alternative remedial structure” that provides no remedy at all cannot bar

constitutional claims. This Court’s decisions in Egbert, Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367

(1983), and Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537 (2007), all require that the alternative

remedy be meaningful. The Ninth Circuit’s decision expands sovereign immunity

and administrative insulation far beyond what this Court has permitted.

III. The Circuits Are Divided on Whether FECA Bars Constitutional Claims

The Third Circuit has held that FECA does not bar constitutional claims and that

sovereign immunity does not shield agencies from constitutional review. The Ninth

Circuit holds the opposite.

This creates a direct conflict on a question of national importance:

Can federal employees bring constitutional claims arising from FECA

administration, or are such claims categorically barred?

This Court routinely grants certiorari to resolve conflicts involving sovereign

immunity, administrative law, access to judicial review, and constitutional

accountability. This case presents all four.

IV. The Question Presented Is Exceptionally Important and Recurring

FECA covers millinns of federal employees, and OWCP processes hundreds of

thousands of claims annually. If the Ninth Circuit is correct, then:

OWCP may violate due process with impunity,

federal employees have no judicial recourse,

constitutional rights are unenforceable, and

administrative delay—even for years—is beyond review.

Petitioner’s seven-year delay is not an isolated incident. It reflects a systemic

problem: a federal benefits program operating without constitutional accountability.

This Court has repeatedly intervened when agencies operate without judicial

oversight. Free Enterprise Fund; Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200

(1994). The same structural problem is present here.

4

V. This Case Is an Ideal Vehicle

The Ninth Circuit resolved the case on pure questions of law: sovereign immunity,

Bivens availability, standing, and FECA’s preclusion of constitutional claims. There

are no disputed facts. The record is clean. The issue is squarely presented.

This case provides an ideal vehicle for resolving the constitutional question and

restoring judicial review where the Constitution requires it.

5

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

day of July, 2026,

Respectfully submitted this / '

rederick W. Richardson

Petitioner Pro se

6