Court Opinion

ID: 9907368
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 15:00:52.698528+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:55:03.378362
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1862    Document: 23     Page: 1   Filed: 12/06/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                   MAXWELL JONES,
                    Plaintiff-Appellant

                             v.

                    UNITED STATES,
                    Defendant-Appellee
                  ______________________

                        2023-1862
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:21-cv-00801-LAS, Senior Judge Loren A. Smith.
                  ______________________

                Decided: December 6, 2023
                 ______________________

    MAXWELL JONES, Houston, TX, pro se.

     EBONIE I. BRANCH, Commercial Litigation Branch,
 Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
 ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, DEBORAH ANN BYNUM, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY.
                   ______________________

     Before LOURIE, PROST, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-1862    Document: 23     Page: 2   Filed: 12/06/2023

 2                                               JONES v. US

 PER CURIAM.
     Maxwell Jones appeals an order of the U.S. Court of
 Federal Claims denying his Rule 60(b) 1 motion for relief
 from a judgment. We affirm.
                       BACKGROUND
     Mr. Jones sued the government in the Court of Federal
 Claims in January 2021. He alleged in his complaint that
 he was wrongfully discharged from the Army as a result of
 an improper General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand
 (“GOMOR”) that was included in his official personnel rec-
 ord. He requested relief in the form of reinstatement, back
 pay, and correction of his military records, including re-
 moval of the GOMOR.
      In June 2021, the Court of Federal Claims stayed
 Mr. Jones’s case in light of concurrent proceedings at the
 Army Board for Correction of Military Records (“Board”).
 In July 2021, the Board granted Mr. Jones partial relief by
 removing the GOMOR from his official personnel record.
 Later, in a revised decision, the Board granted Mr. Jones
 full relief, including reinstating him to Active Guard Re-
 serve status and authorizing back pay and allowances.
     After the Court of Federal Claims was notified of the
 revised Board decision, the government moved to dismiss
 Mr. Jones’s complaint, arguing that it was moot because
 the Board had given Mr. Jones all the relief he had re-
 quested from the court. In February 2022, the court
 granted the government’s motion, dismissed the complaint
 as moot, and entered judgment accordingly. See Order
 at 1, Jones v. United States, No. 1:21-cv-801 (Fed. Cl.
 Feb. 24, 2022), ECF No. 23 (“The court agrees that the

     1   Unless otherwise noted, the Rules referenced in
 this opinion are the Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal
 Claims.
Case: 23-1862     Document: 23     Page: 3    Filed: 12/06/2023

 JONES v. US                                                 3

 [Board]’s corrected decision has granted all the relief
 sought in plaintiff’s complaint, leaving no justiciable issues
 upon which this court can render a decision.” (cleaned up)).
     In September 2022, Mr. Jones filed a motion under
 Rule 60(b) seeking relief from that judgment. The court
 thereafter held several status conferences with the parties,
 which culminated in an order that Mr. Jones “file a brief
 detailing his outstanding allegations and identifying the
 corresponding relief.” Order at 1, Jones v. United States,
 No. 1:21-cv-801 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 21, 2023), ECF No. 46.
     In his court-ordered brief, Mr. Jones (1) questioned the
 authenticity of the revised Board decision, (2) alleged that
 he was still owed back pay, and (3) alleged that the
 GOMOR had not been removed from his official personnel
 record. The government’s response brief addressed each
 contention. First, it characterized Mr. Jones’s suggestion
 that the revised Board decision was inauthentic as “no
 more than an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory . . . .
 wholly unsupported by the record.” Def.’s Corrected Resp.
 to Pl.’s Mar. 6, 2023 Filing at 6, Jones v. United States,
 No. 1:21-cv-801 (Fed. Cl. Apr. 7, 2023), ECF No. 53. The
 government deemed the suggestion particularly implausi-
 ble given that Mr. Jones’s official personnel record also con-
 tained a memorandum explaining why the Board’s decision
 was revised. Id. (referencing GApp’x 2 19–20). Second, the
 government explained that Mr. Jones was not owed back
 pay because any back pay had to be reduced by his separa-
 tion payment and offset by his civilian earnings since his
 discharge—leaving him with no back pay owed. Id. at 7–8.
 Third, the government explained that, although the
 GOMOR itself was removed from Mr. Jones’s official per-
 sonnel record, Army regulations required that Board deci-
 sions remain in that record. That meant that the revised

     2  “GApp’x” refers to the appendix included with the
 government’s informal brief.
Case: 23-1862      Document: 23      Page: 4     Filed: 12/06/2023

 4                                                   JONES v. US

 Board decision referencing the GOMOR had to stay (though
 the government represented that it was placed in a re-
 stricted folder). Id. at 11–12.
      The Court of Federal Claims heard oral argument after
 this round of briefing, and in May 2023, it denied
 Mr. Jones’s Rule 60(b) 3 motion. The court noted that
 Mr. Jones had “identifie[d] no mistake, newly discovered
 evidence, or fraud, nor d[id] he demonstrate . . . any other
 reason that justifies relief.” GApp’x 2 (addressing standard
 for Rule 60(b) relief). Although the court did not explicitly
 reference Mr. Jones’s suggestion that the revised Board de-
 cision was inauthentic, it explained in detail why
 Mr. Jones’s allegations concerning owed back pay and the
 GOMOR lacked merit. As to the former, the court ex-
 plained that Mr. Jones had “accrued $92,401.56 of back pay
 and allowances for the separation period” but that the De-
 fense Finance and Accounting Service “was required to de-
 duct $92,401.56 from that amount for separation pay
 already paid out to plaintiff, an offset for plaintiff’s civilian
 earnings during the separation period, and other smaller
 deductions.” GApp’x 2. To do otherwise, the court ob-
 served, would award Mr. Jones “an unearned windfall” in-
 stead of returning him “to the same position he would have
 had if he had not been separated from military service.”
 GApp’x 2 (cleaned up) (citing Department of Defense

     3   Mr. Jones’s motion had also cited Rule 59 as sup-
 porting relief, but the Court of Federal Claims concluded
 that the potentially relevant provision of that rule could
 not apply because Mr. Jones had filed his motion well out-
 side the applicable 28-day timeframe. GApp’x 1 n.1 (citing
 Rule 59(e)). The Court of Federal Claims therefore evalu-
 ated the motion only under Rule 60(b). See id. Mr. Jones
 does not dispute that treatment, so we will likewise evalu-
 ate the motion and the Court of Federal Claims’ order only
 under Rule 60(b).
Case: 23-1862      Document: 23      Page: 5     Filed: 12/06/2023

 JONES v. US                                                    5

 Financial Management Regulation Volume 7A, ch. 1,
 ¶ 3.1.6, titled “Corrections of Military Record”). As to the
 latter, the court credited the declaration of a Paralegal Spe-
 cialist with the Army Legal Services Agency and found
 that, although “[t]hree documents in a restricted folder . . .
 reference the removal of the GOMOR . . . , the GOMOR it-
 self is gone.” GApp’x 3 (emphasis in original) (referencing
 GApp’x 34–36). The court further explained that Army reg-
 ulations required that Board decisions and records of pro-
 ceedings remain in Mr. Jones’s record. See GApp’x 3 (citing
 Army Regulation 600-8-104). The court accordingly denied
 Mr. Jones’s Rule 60(b) motion and denied all other pending
 motions as moot. GApp’x 3.
     Mr. Jones timely appealed the Court of Federal Claims’
 order denying his Rule 60(b) motion. 4 We have jurisdiction
 under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
                          DISCUSSION
     We review the Court of Federal Claims’ denial of a Rule
 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. E.g., Progressive

     4    Although some statements in Mr. Jones’s informal
 briefing suggest that he considers the underlying February
 2022 dismissal judgment to be within the scope of this ap-
 peal, we lack jurisdiction to review that judgment because
 this appeal was filed well beyond 60 days after that judg-
 ment. See, e.g., Peretz v. United States, No. 21-1831,
 2022 WL 1232118, at *3–5 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 26, 2022) (as
 modified) (nonprecedential). And “an appeal from denial of
 [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 60(b) relief does not bring
 up the underlying judgment for review.” Browder v. Dir.,
 Dep’t of Corr. of Ill., 434 U.S. 257, 263 n.7 (1978); see Peretz,
 2022 WL 1232118, at *4 (applying this principle in the con-
 text of Rule 60(b) of the Court of Federal Claims). We will
 therefore not review the February 2022 dismissal judg-
 ment.
Case: 23-1862     Document: 23      Page: 6    Filed: 12/06/2023

 6                                                  JONES v. US

 Indus., Inc. v. United States, 888 F.3d 1248, 1255 (Fed. Cir.
 2018). “A court abuses its discretion when (1) its decision
 is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary[,] or fanciful; (2) the de-
 cision is based upon an erroneous construction of the law;
 (3) its factual findings are clearly erroneous; or (4) the rec-
 ord contains no evidence upon which the . . . court could
 have rationally based its decision.” Shell Oil Co. v. United
 States, 896 F.3d 1299, 1306–07 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (cleaned
 up).
     Mr. Jones fails to demonstrate that the Court of Fed-
 eral Claims abused its discretion in denying his Rule 60(b)
 motion. To begin, he insists that the revised Board decision
 was “forged,” and he criticizes the Court of Federal Claims
 for not specifically addressing that contention. See Appel-
 lant’s Informal Br. 2–6. Yet, although the court’s order did
 not discuss this contention specifically, cf. GApp’x 2 (con-
 cluding generally that Mr. Jones had not identified fraud),
 none of Mr. Jones’s arguments persuade us that its treat-
 ment of this issue was so unsatisfactory as to give rise to
 an abuse of discretion in denying Rule 60(b) relief. Simi-
 larly, while Mr. Jones continues to object to the reduction
 of his back pay, see Appellant’s Informal Br. 8–9, and to
 documents referencing the GOMOR remaining in his offi-
 cial personnel record, see id. at 5–6, his arguments either
 lack meaningful engagement with the Court of Federal
 Claims’ reasoning, are unsupported, or are undeveloped.
 For example, he argues that “10 U.S.C. §§ 1174 [and]
 1174a” “prohibit[] any collection of severance or separa-
 tion[] pay [to] be deducted from a service member[’]s sal-
 ary.” Id. at 9. But he does not provide any explanation of
 how these statutory provisions support his assertion, and
 on their face, it is not clear that they do.
      In sum, the abuse-of-discretion standard is deferential.
 And considering Mr. Jones’s arguments—particularly
 against what appears to have been a diligent, sustained ef-
 fort by the Court of Federal Claims to ensure that his sali-
 ent concerns were heard and addressed—we cannot say
Case: 23-1862    Document: 23       Page: 7   Filed: 12/06/2023

 JONES v. US                                                7

 that the court abused its discretion by denying Rule 60(b)
 relief.
                        CONCLUSION
      We have considered Mr. Jones’s remaining arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
 affirm. 5
                        AFFIRMED
                            COSTS
 No costs.

     5    Mr. Jones filed a motion (ECF No. 20) seeking to
 supplement the appellate record and offer materials for
 this court’s judicial notice. The government did not file a
 response opposing this motion. We grant the motion (albeit
 only insofar as it seeks to supplement the record on appeal
 and make materials available for this court to potentially
 judicially notice), but it does not change our disposition of
 this appeal.