### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) 

### LAWRENCE WILDER, ) ) 

### Plaintiff, ) ) 

### v. ) ) 

### HILDA SOLIS, l ) 

### Secretary, United States Department ofLabor, et al.,) ) 

### Defendants. ) 

### ------------------------------) Civil ActionNo.



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED APR 1 32009 NANCYMAYERWHITIlNGTON, CLERK U.S. DISTRICTCOURT



# 09 

# U681

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs application to proceed informapauperis 

### and pro se 

### complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed for lack ofsubject matterjurisdiction. It 

### appears that plaintiffsuffers from a mental illness and that his illness was a factor in the events leading to his removal from federal service. The Court construes his Complaint as an action against the Secretary ofLabor and the Acting Secretary ofHealth and Human Services to challenge the agencies' handling ofa claim for workers' compensation benefits and an application for disability retirement filed on his behalfbythe Department ofHealth and Human

Although plaintiffhas named the Acting Secretary ofthe United States Department ofLabor as a party defendant, and the Court substitutes the current Secretary of Labor as a party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 1Services under 5 C.F.R. § 844.202.2 He demands damages of$101,180,973. "The Federal Employees Compensation Act ("FECA"), 5 U.S.C. 

### § 8101 

### etseq., establishes a comprehensive workers' compensation scheme under which federal employees
... receive compensation, regardless offault, for employment related injuries or deaths." 

### Chung v. 

### Chao, 518 F. Supp. 2d 270,272 (D.D.C. 2007). Under the FECA, the decision ofthe Secretary ofLabor in allowing or denying a workers' compensation payment is "not subject to review by another official ofthe United States orby a court bymandamus or otherwise." 5 U.S.c. § 8128(b)(2). This is "an unambiguous and comprehensive provisionbarring anyjudicial review ofthe Secretary ofLabor's determination ofFECA coverage." 

### SouthwestMarine, Inc. v. 

### Gizoni, 502 U.S. 81,90 (1991) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Any claim plaintiff purports to raise under the FECAmust be dismissed for lack ofsubject matterjurisdiction. 

### See id.; Roberts v. 

### United States Dep't of Labor, No. 92-1034, 1993 WL 32318, at 

## *1 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 29, 1993) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal ofa FECA claim because 5 U.S.C. § 8128 "precludes judicial review ofan action ofthe Secretary ofLabor in allowing or denying a payment"). A decision to remove a federal employee is matter over which the Merit Systems Protection Board ("MSPB") hasjurisdiction. 

### See 5 U.S.c. § 7701(a); C.F.R. § 1201.3(a)(1). A challenge to the MSPB's substantive and procedural decisions in handling his case "should proceed along the heretofore universally accepted route of judicial review, not through a collateral attack raised in the district court." 

### Arakawa v. 

### Reagan. 666 F. Supp. 254, 257 (D.D.C. 1987). His claims pertaining to the MSPB must be dismissed for lack ofsubject matter

2 Forpurposes ofthis Memorandum Opinion, the Court considers together two complaints which appear to raise similar claims and to which plaintiffattaches identical exhibits. 2

### jurisdiction. 

### See Miller v. 

### Roberts, 548 F. Supp. 2d 1227, 1232 (N.D. Okla. 2008) (dismissing a claim against the MSPB because "exclusivejurisdiction over [the plaintiffs] claim against the MSPB lies with the United States Court ofAppeals for the Federal Circuit"); 

### Wexler v. 

### Merit Systems Protection Bd., 986 F.2d at 1432;

### Arakawa, 666 F. Supp. at 257. An 

### Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

# -1uSm.t(J~1§P3