N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.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

___________________________
M ANCY N. T HOMPSON , J R ., of La Mesa, California, pro

se.

R ENEE G ERBER , Trial Attorney, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, fo r defendant-appellee. With her on the brief were T ONY W EST , Attorney General, J EANNE E. D AVIDSON , Director, and D EBORAH A. B YNUM , Assistant Director.THOMPSON v. US 2

__________________________ Before B RYSON , M AYER , and R EYNA , Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

.
D ECISION

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.

B ACKGROUND

Mr. Thompson was discharged from the United States Marine Corps on September 9, 1987, following his arrest for murder. In 1997, Mr. Tho mpson sought review of his discharge characterization with the Navy Discharge Review Board, which sustaine d 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 unlawfuland that he was entitled to full pay and benefits retroactive to the date of his separation. Mr. Thompson alleged that his discharge was unlawfu l 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. Thompsonhad 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.THOMPSON v. US 3

D ISCUSSION

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 hiscomplaint 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 hi s 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 defe ndant has concealed its acts with the result that plainti ff 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 beyond1997, 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 hi s complaint. In light of the jurisdictional basis for the dismissal, we do not address the issues raised in Mr. Tho mpson’s informal brief going to the merits of his claim.

No costs.

AFFIRMED