NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

MANCY N. THOMPSON, JR., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant- Appellee. 

__________________________ 

2011-5057 

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in Case No. 09-CV-264, Judge Lawrence J. Block. 

___________________________ 

Decided: May 9, 2012 

___________________________ 

MANCY N. THOMPSON, JR., of La Mesa, California, pro 

se. 

RENEE GERBER, Trial Attorney, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, United States Department of 

Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. With 

her on the brief were TONY WEST, Attorney General, 

JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, and DEBORAH A. BYNUM, 

Assistant Director. 
THOMPSON v. US 2

__________________________ 

Before BRYSON, MAYER, and REYNA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

DECISION

Mancy N. Thompson, Jr., appeals from a decision of 

the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his 

case for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Thompson was discharged from the United States 

Marine Corps on September 9, 1987, following his arrest 

for murder. In 1997, Mr. Thompson sought review of his 

discharge characterization with the Navy Discharge 

Review Board, which sustained the discharge. In 2009, 

Mr. Thompson filed a complaint in the Court of Federal 

Claims under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, alleging 

that his separation from the Marine Corps was unlawful 

and that he was entitled to full pay and benefits retroactive to the date of his separation. Mr. Thompson alleged 

that his discharge was unlawful because he never waived 

his right to a court-martial and the public defender who 

was appointed to defend him against murder charges in 

1987 was not authorized to waive that right on his behalf. 

The Court of Federal Claims found that Mr. Thompson 

had failed to file his complaint within the six-year limitations period set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2501. The court 

therefore dismissed Mr. Thompson’s complaint for lack of 

jurisdiction and declined to address the merits of his 

claim. 
3 THOMPSON v. US

DISCUSSION

The statute of limitations applicable to claims filed in 

the Court of Federal Claims is six years. 28 U.S.C. § 

2501. Mr. Thompson was discharged from the Marine 

Corps on September 9, 1987. He did not file his claim 

until April 28, 2009, more than 21 years later. Twentyone years far exceeds the six-year limitations period of 

section 2501, which is jurisdictional and cannot be 

waived. See John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 

552 U.S. 130 (2008). 

Mr. Thompson argues that the trial court should have 

applied principles of equitable tolling and found his 

complaint timely. Equitable tolling, however, is precluded under 28 U.S.C. § 2501. Holmes v. United States, 

657 F.3d 1303, 1317 n.11 (Fed. Cir. 2011), citing John R. 

Sand & Gravel Co., 552 U.S. at 132-39; Young v. United 

States, 529 F.3d 1380, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 

Mr. Thompson also argues the trial court should have 

ruled that the accrual of his cause of action was suspended and that his complaint was timely for that reason. 

We disagree. Accrual of a claim against the United States 

is suspended only if “the defendant has concealed its acts 

with the result that plaintiff was unaware of their existence” or if the plaintiff’s injury “was ‘inherently unknowable’ at the accrual date.” Young, 529 F.3d at 1384. The 

record shows that Mr. Thompson was aware of the facts 

underlying his claim no later than 1997. Thus, even if 

accrual suspension applied, it would not have resulted in 

the suspension of the accrual date for his claim beyond 

1997, which was more than 10 years before Mr. Thompson filed his complaint. 
THOMPSON v. US 4

Because neither equitable tolling nor suspension of 

accrual serves to avoid the application of the six-year 

limitations period to Mr. Thompson’s claim, we uphold 

the trial court’s dismissal of his complaint. In light of the 

jurisdictional basis for the dismissal, we do not address 

the issues raised in Mr. Thompson’s informal brief going 

to the merits of his claim. 

 No costs. 

AFFIRMED