ORIGINAL 

lf n tbe Wniteb ~tates '!Court of jf eberal '!Claitns 

No. 18-1312C 

(Filed September 21, 2018) 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

* 

* 

GERARD L. WEBB, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

THE UNITED STATES, 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Defendant. * 

* 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

ORDER 

FILED 

SEP 2 1 2018 

U.S. COURT OF 

FEDERAL CLAIMS 

On August 24, 2018, Gerard Webb filed a complaint with the bare allegation, 

stated twice, that "pay wasnt [sic] sufficient to cover all options available, Housing 

pay, subsistence pay, expenses." Complaint iii[ 1, 3. On the accompanying cover 

sheet, Mr. Webb used nature-of-suit code 340 ("Military Pay - Back Pay"), and 

requested back pay in the amount of $2,608,000,000. 

On September 4, 2018, the Clerk's office received two additional documents 

from Mr. Webb. The first consists of a letter from Mr. Webb and a copy of his 

previous cover sheet on which he crossed out the initial requested amount and 

instead wrote $362,608,000,000. On this sheet, he also changed the Agency 

Identification Code from the Department of Defense to the Army. It appears this 

document is an attempt to amend Mr. Webb's initial complaint and it shall be filed 

accordingly as an amendment to his original complaint. 

The second additional document is a complaint with sparse but nearly 

identical language to his initial complaint---alleging that "pay isn't sufficient to 

cover all options available, Housing pay, subsistence pay, expenses" (emphasis 

added). The cover sheet for this document lists the Agency Identification Code as 

"VA," and indicates the following nature-of-suit codes: 300 ("Civilian Pay - Back 

Pay"), 303 ("Civilia n Pay - Disability Annuity"), and 312 ("Civilian Pay - Other"). 

7018 0040 0001 1393 2980 
An "[u]nlimited" amount of damages is claimed by plaintiff. Mister Webb also 

submitted a check to cover the filing fee for a new complaint. 

As Mr. Webb is representing himself, he apparently does not realize he can 

combine multiple claims against the United States in the same case. In light of 

plaintiffs prose status, the Court will treat the second additional document as 

another amendment to the complaint in case No. 18-1312C. Since no filing fee is 

required for amendments, the Clerk is directed to return to Mr. Webb the check he 

submitted with this second document. 

Although Mr. Webb is claiming an impossibly large amount of damages---as 

it is inconceivable that he could be owed hundreds of billions of dollars, much less 

an award without limit---our court does have jurisdiction over certain claims for 

military or civilian pay. But among the initial complaint and the two amendments, 

the allegations are not specific enough to enable a meaningful response from the 

government. A fourth document received from Mr. Webb, filed by the Clerk on 

September 14, 2018, fills in some of the gaps, and should be treated as an exhibit to 

his amended complaint. See ECF No. 5. This document, an application for the 

correction of military records signed and dated by plaintiff on September 5, 2018, 

indicates that he was discharged (presumably from the Army) on February 7, 2017, 

and seeks a correction regarding his "Base Pay" from July 3, 1996, through 

February 7, 2007. Absent from this case, however, are any specific allegations 

concerning civilian pay earned (or disability incurred) while in the employ of the 

United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Nor are there any allegations 

concerning the legal grounds for his claimed entitlement to back pay for his Army 

service. The Court, moreover, notes that it is not clear whether the difference 

between the discharge date (February 7, 2017) and the end point for his base pay 

claim (February 7, 2007) is intentional or a typographical error. 

Under these circumstances the Court finds it appropriate, under Rule 12(e) of 

the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, to require a more definite 

statement from Mr. Webb concerning his claims. See Bernier v. Trump, 299 F. 

Supp. 3d 150, 159 (D.D.C. 2018) (applying the identical rule from the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, explaining that "a court can sua sponte order a plaintiff to 

submit a more definite statement" (quoting Momenian v. Davidson, 878 F.3d 381, 

391 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (citing, inter alia, 2 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal 

Practice ,r 12.34[l][b] (3d ed. 2017))). Within twenty-eight days of the date of this 

order, Mr. Webb must submit a more definite statement regarding his claims for 

back pay from the Army and the VA. In particular, the Court requires clarifications 

with respect to: (1) the time period for which Mr. Webb believes he was underpaid; 

(2) the statutes or regulations which he contends entitle him to more pay than he 

has received; and (3) an explanation of why he contends he is owed back pay by the 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. 

- 2 -
The government's response to the amended complaint will not be due until 

thirty-one days after service of the more definite statement by Mr. Webb. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

- 3 -