# 0R[ffit[$At lln tll,e 

# @nite!$tutes 

# [.ourt of

# :felersl @[sfms FILED No. 15-226 Filed: July 6, 2015 

### TO BE 

### PUBLISHED *+*+*:f****   ** ***** *:i:1.*******:f :f******:i


### ROGERHAYNES, 

# I[, Plaintiff, 

### pro se,

THE 

### UNITED STATES, Defendant.

* t( :i.,1' :1.1. ri. + rr* r.* {. 'N:t !t* * rr tr :1.:1.,1.,1.*t

### *** * '1.!&:l*,1 * *,1 :** Roger Haynes, 

### III, Wichita, Kansas, 

### pro se. 

### Alexander 

### V. Sverdlov, United States Department of Justice, 

### Civil Division, Washington, D.C., Counselfor the Govemment.



### MEMORANDUM OPINION AND 

### FINAL ORDER 

# I. RELEVANTFACTUALBACKGROUND.' From October 1972

### to September 1987, 

### as

### well as 

### inJuly 1988, 

### Roger Haynes 

### III ("Plaintiff') worked in the railroad 

### industry. Gov'tApp'x A, at

### 2. On an unspecified date, 

### Plaintiff wasfound 

### "totally and permanently 

### disabled." Gov't 

### App'x A, at

### 2. On March 1, 1990, 

### Plaintiff began receiving aa annuity, as calculated under the rules of the Railroad Retirement 

### Act. Compl. at PDF 

### 4-5; seealso Railroad Retirement 

### Act 

### of 1974,45 U.S.C. $231etseq. 

### ("RRA') On September

### 6,2013, the Railroad Retirement 

### Board 

### ("RRB") reissued 

### Plaintiff s annuity, effective 

### August 

## l, 2013, 

### in the amount 

### of $2,119.90 per 

### month. Gov't App'x B, at 2. 

## I The relevant 

### facts were derived

### from Plaintiff s March

### 3, 2015 Complaint and the unnumbered Exhibits attached thereto 

### ("Compl.") andtheAppendix to the Government's May 4, 2015 

### Motion To Dismiss 

### ("Gov't App'x 

### A-B"). JUL

### _

### 6 2015 U.S. COURT OF FEDERALCLAIMS
Jurisdiction; 

### Motion To Dismiss, RCFC 12(bX1); Pro se.The 

### RRB's decision 

### included a statement stating 

### that any appeal 

### must be

### filed "WITHIN 60



### DAYS," 

### if Plaintiff wanted reconsideration. 

### Gov't 

### App'x B, at 2. 

### On December 17,

### 2013-102 days 

### later-Plaintiff appealed 

### the 

### RRB's 

### initial decision regarding the amount of his 

### annuity. Gov't 

### App'x B, at

### 2. On January

### 3,2014,the RRB directed 

### Plaintiffto show "good cause for his untimely request." 

### Gov't

### App'xB, at2. In response, 

### Plaintiff contended that his appeal should be considered, because he 

### "did not seethe appeal rights on the back of the agency's 

### letter." Gov't 

### App'x A, at 3 (internal quotations 

### omitted). On January 31, 2014, the RRB notified 

### Plaintiffthat, since he did not request an appeal

### within the sixty day period or showing "good reason for thedelay," 

### it would not review the 

### initial decision. Gov't 

### App'x B, at 3. 

### On February 

### 3,2014, Plaintiff filed a 

### petition 

### for appeal

### with the United States 

### Merit Systems Protection Board 

### ("MSPB"), Denver Field O{fice, to challenge the RRB's 

### initial decision and request reconsideration. 

### Gov't App'x B, at 

### 1. On March 7, 2015, the MSPB dismissed the appeal for lack 

### ofjurisdiction. Gov't 

### App'x B, at 

### l. On an unspecified date, 

### Plaintiffpetitioned for reconsideration and on October 8,

### 2014,the MSPB denied 

### Plaintiff spetition for review and affirmed the RRB's 

### initial decision. 

### Gov't

### App'x 

### A, at

# 11. The MSPB concluded 

### that 

## it did not have

### authority

### to review retirement benefits decisions made by the 

### RRB. Gov't 

### App'x A, at

### 3. The MSPB concluded that the United States Court 

### of Appeals

### for the Federal 

### Circuit has sole

### jurisdiction to review any

### final actions 

### of the 

### RRB. Gov't 

### App'x A, at 4 

### (citing 5 U.S.C. $

### 7703(bX1XA). '? 

# II. PROCEDURALHISTORY. On March 3,2015, 

### Plaintiff filed aComplaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims. On 

### March 17

### .2015. Plaintiff filed a 

### Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperrs thatthe court granted on

### April 7,2015. On May, 

### 4,2015, the Government 

### filed a 

### Motion To Dismiss 

### ("Gov't Mot."), pursuantto Rule 12(bX1) of the United States Court of Federal Claims

### (.'RCFC). OnMay20,20l5, Plaintiff filed a Response ("P1. 

### Resp."). On June 8,2015, the Govemment 

### filed a Reply 

### ("Gov't Reply").



## ' Section 7703, in relevant part, provides: 

### [A] petition 

### to review a

### final order or 

### final decision 

### of the Board shall be

### filed 

### in the 

### United States 

### Court

### of Appeals 

### for the Federal 

### Circuit. Notwithstanding any other 

### provision

### of law, any 

### petition for review shall be

### filed 

### within 60 days after the Board issues notice 

### ofthe final order or decision 

### ofthe Board.
5 U.S.C. $

### 7703(bXrXA).

## ilL DISCUSSION.



# A. Jurisdiction. The United States Court of Federal Claims has

### jurisdiction under theTucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 1491, 

### "to render 

### judgment upon any 

### claim against the 

### United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any

### Act of Congress 

### or any regulation 

### of an executive department, or upon any express or 

### implied contract

### with the 

### United States, 

### or

### for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in

### tort." 28 U.S.C. $ 

### la9l(a)(1). The Tucker Act, however, is "a

### jurisdictional statute; 

### it does not create any substantive 

### right enforceable against the 

### United States 

### for money damages


### . . 

### .

# . [T]he

### Act merely confers

### jurisdiction upon [the 

### United States Court 

### of Federal Claimsl wheneverthe substantive right 

### exists." UnitedStates v.

### Teslan,424U.5.392,398 (1976). To pursue a substantive right under theTucker

### Act, a

### plaintiff must 

### identify and plead an independent contractual relationship, Constitutional 

### provision, federal statute, and/or executive agency regulation that provides asubstantive right to money damages. See Toddv. United States, 386 F.3d 1091, 1094 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2004) 

### ("[J]urisdiction under the TuckerAct requires the litigant to identifu asubstantive right for money damages against the United States separatefrom the Tucker 

### Act[.]"); see also Fisher 

### v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2005) (en banc) 

## (The TuckerAct... does not create asubstantive cause 

### ofaction;



## ... a

### plaintiff must identify a separate source

### of substantive 

### law that creates the 

### right to money damages.



### . .

# . [T]hat source must be 

### 'money-mandating."'). Specifically, a

### plaintiff must demonstrate that the source

### of substantive 

### law that he relies 

### upon 

### "can

### fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation 

### by the Federal 

### Govemment[.]" Testan, 

### 424 U.S. at

### 400. And, the 

### plaintiff bearsthe burden 

### of establishing 

### jurisdiction by a preponderance 

### of the evidence. See Reynolds v.

### Army 

### &Air Force Exch. Serv., 

### 846F.2d746,748 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1988) 

### ("[O]nce the 

### [trial] court's subject matter

### jurisdiction [is] put 

### in question



### . . 

### . . [the 

### plaintiffl bears the burden

### of establishing subject matter

### jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence."). 

# B. Standard 

### Of Review 

### For Pro ^Se

### Litigants, Pro se 

### plaintiffs' pleadings are held 

### to a less stringent standard than those 

### of litigants represented

### by counsel. See Haines 

### v. 

### Kerner,404 U.S. 519,520 (1972) 

### (holding that 

### pro se complaints, 

### "however 

### inartfully pleaded," are 

### held

### to "less stringent standards 

### than formal pleadings drafted 

### by 

### lawyers"). This court 

### traditionally examines the record 

### "to see

### if [a

### pro se] 

### plaintiff has a cause 

### of action somewhere 

### displayed." Ruderer 

### v. United

### States,4l2F.2d 1285, 1292 (Cr. 

### Cl. 1969). Nevertheless, 

### while the court may excuse ambiguities rn a

### pro se

### plaintiff s complaint, the court "does not excuse [a

### complaint's] 

### failures." Henke 

### v. United 

### States,60F.3d 795,799 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1995). 

# C. Standards For 

### Motion To Dismiss 

### Pursuant 

### RCFC 

### 12(bxl). A challenge tothe United States Court of Federal 

### Claims' "general power to adjudicate 

### in specific areas ofsubstantive law

. . . . is properly raised by a 

### [Rule] l2(bX1) 

### motion[.]" Palmer v. united 

### States,l68 F.3d 1310, 1313 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1999); see aiso RCFC 12(bX1) 

### ("Every defense to aclaim for 

### reliefin any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading

. . .

### . But aparty may assert the

### following defenses by motion: (1) lack 

### ofjurisdiction over the subject 

### matter[.]"). Whenconsidering whether 

### to dismiss an action 

### for lack

### of subject matter

### jurisdiction, the court is

"obligated to assume 

### allfactual allegations of the complaint to be true and to draw all reasonable inferences in 

### plaintiff s

### favor." Henke,60F.3dat797. 

# D. The Government's 

### May 4, 2015 

### Motion To Dismiss. 

# 1. The Government's 

### Argument. The Govemment argues that the court does not have

### jurisdiction over the March 30, 2015 

### Complaint. Gov't Mot. at3; see

### also Gov't Reply 

### at 

### 1. According 

### to 5 U.S.C. $ 7703, MSPB decisions may be appealed 

### only at the 

### United States Court 

### of Appeals 

### for the Federal Circuit. 

### Gov't Mot. at

# 3. As such, 

### the court does 

### not have subject matter

### jurisdiction 

### to adjudicate 

### Plaintiff sMarch 3, 2015 

### Complaint. Gov't Mot. at 3. 

### Evenif, arguendo, the court had

### jurisdiction over this matter, 

### Plaintiffs attempt to review the 

### MSPB's October 

### 8,2014 decision 

### is outside the statutory appeal 

### period. Gov't Mot. at 4. Because a challenge 

### to the 

### MSPB's October 8, 2014 decision must have been

### filedwithin sixty 

### days-by December

### 2014-the March 3,2015 Complaint is 

### untimely. 

### Gov'tMot.at4. Therefore, even 

### if the court had

### jurisdiction, 

### Plaintiffs claims would be barred bythe statute 

### of limitations. 

### Gov't Mot. at 4. 

# 2. PlaintifflsResponse, 

### Plaintiff s

### May 20, 2015 Response was comprised 

### ofa disparate collection 

### of grievances, 

### hand

### written notes, 

### court documents, 

### and letters 

### that 

### did not address

### the merits 

## of the Govemment's arguments. 

# 3. The

### Court's Resolution. The court 

### is cognizant 

### of its obligation 

### to liberally construe 

### pro se

### plaintiffs' pleadings. See Estelle v. Gamble,429 

### U.5.97,106 (197 6) (holding that the "pro sedocument isto be 

### liberally construed"). B:ut,

### pro se 

### plaintiffs must

### still "complywith the applicable rules of procedural and substantive 

## law." Llalsh 

### v. United States, 

### 3 

### Cl. Ct. 539,541 

### (1983). The court cannot simply excuse acomplaint's 

### failures. See Henke,60 F.3d at799. As athreshold matter, a

### plaintiff must establish that the court 

### hasjurisdiction to adjudicate an alleged 

### claim. ,See Trusted Integrdtion, Inc. 

### v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 201 1) (holding that the 

### plaintiff "bears the burden 

### of establishing the court's

### jurisdiction over its claims by apreponderance

### ofthe evidence"). The United States Court of Federal Claims may only issue judgments

### for money damages against the United States, 

### if the cause 

### of action is grounded 

### in a contract, a money-mandating statute, or the Takings Clauseofthe 

### Fifth Amendment. See 28 U.S.C 

### $ 1491; see

### also Testan, 424 U.S. at398 (holding that theTucker 

### Act "does not create a substantive 

### right enforceable against the 

### United States 

### for money damages" andthat 

### it "merely confers 

### jurisdiction upon 

### it whenever the substantive 

### right 

### exists"). This burden 

### is not relieved because a

### plaintiff is

### pro 

### se. See Henke, 60 F.3d at 799 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1995) (holding that the court "does not excuse [a

### complaint's] failures").The March 

### 3,2015 Complaint does not satisfy this

### threshold. The United States Court 

### of

Appeals

### for the Federal 

### Circuit isthe propervenue 

### for 

### Plaintiffs appeal, aswas advised 

### in the October 8,2014 MSPB 

### decision. Gov't 

### App'x A, at 5 (providing the addresstothe United States Court ofAppeals under abolded heading stating 

### "NOTICE TO THE

### APPELLANT REGARDING YOUR FURTHER 

### REVIEW 

### RIGHTS"). This is supported by statute and precedential case law. ,See 5 U.S.C. $

### 7703(bXlXA) 

### ("[A] petition to review afinal order orfinal decision ofthe [MSPB] shall be

### filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the Federal 

### Circuit."); U.S.C. $ 1295(a)(9) ("The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal

### Circuit shall have exclusive 

### jurisdiction

. . . 

## of an appeal

### from 

## a final order

## or final decision 

## of the [MSPB], purswurt 

## to sections 7703(b)(1)[.]"); see also 

### Lindahl v. Office of Pers. 

### Mgmt.,470U.5.768,792 (1985) (holding that, rather than granting appellate 

### jurisdiction to the United States Court 

### of Federal Claims, "Sections 1295(a)(9) 

### and 

### 7703(b)(l) together appear

### to provide 

### for exclusive 

### jurisdiction over MSPB decisions in the Federal 

### Circuit, and do not admit any exceptions[.]"). As such, this court does not have the subject matter 

### jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims 

### in Plaintiff sMarch 3, 2015 Complaint. 

# Iv. CONCLUSION. For these reasons,

### the Govemment's 

### May 

### 4,2015 MotionTo Dismiss 

### is granted. Sae RCFC 

### 12(bX1). The Clerk is directed to dismiss the March 

### 3,2015 Complaint.


### IT IS SO

### ORDERED.