Court Opinion

ID: 9907366
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 15:00:50.92683+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:55:03.671870
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1738    Document: 18     Page: 1   Filed: 12/06/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

      DONALD W. PARK, KATHLEEN A. PARK,
              Plaintiffs-Appellants

                             v.

                    UNITED STATES,
                    Defendant-Appellee
                  ______________________

                        2023-1738
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:22-cv-01656-EGB, Senior Judge Eric G. Bruggink.
                  ______________________

                Decided: December 6, 2023
                 ______________________

    DONALD W. PARK, Hemet, CA, pro se.

    KATHLEEN A. PARK, Hemet, CA, pro se.

     JOSEPH ALAN PIXLEY, Commercial Litigation Branch,
 Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
 ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY.
                   ______________________
Case: 23-1738    Document: 18      Page: 2    Filed: 12/06/2023

 2                                                 PARK v. US

      Before DYK, SCHALL, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
     Donald Park, a veteran of the United States Navy, and
 his wife, Kathleen, appeal pro se from a decision of the
 Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”), dismissing their
 complaint sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
 The Claims Court held that the Parks’ claims were time-
 barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2501. We affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
     Mr. Park served in the United States Navy for over 24
 years. In 1987, Mr. Park was required to participate in a
 Level III alcohol rehabilitation treatment program, follow-
 ing an alcohol abuse report from his command. Mr. Park
 alleges that he was wrongfully incarcerated at an alcohol
 rehabilitation facility against his will, that his rank was
 reduced by four pay grades, that he was denied further pro-
 motions, and that he was forced to retire in 1993.
     In 2020, Mr. Park applied to the Board of Correction of
 Naval Records (“BCNR”) for a review of his service record,
 requesting corrections regarding his demotions and re-
 moval of unfavorable information. On February 10, 2022,
 the BCNR granted partial relief by redacting the words “di-
 agnosed as an alcoholic” from his first special fitness re-
 port. All other requested relief was denied.
     The Parks then filed a complaint with the Claims
 Court, seeking relief from the refusal of the Board to cor-
 rect various other alleged errors in Mr. Park’s service rec-
 ord and monetary relief. After the initial complaint was
 amended, the Claims Court concluded that the Parks’
 claims accrued no later than 1993 and were barred by the
 statute of limitations, so dismissed the amended complaint
 sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The
 Claims Court also denied the Parks’ motion to transfer to
 the Central District of California.
Case: 23-1738    Document: 18      Page: 3   Filed: 12/06/2023

 PARK v. US                                                3

    We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
                        DISCUSSION
     On appeal, the Parks raise for the first time the ques-
 tion of whether two statutes of limitations, 28 U.S.C.
 § 2401 and 28 U.S.C. § 2501, unconstitutionally abridge
 the right to petition the government for a redress of griev-
 ances, in violation of the First Amendment. The Parks
 never challenged these statutes nor raised any argument
 as to their constitutionality before the Claims Court. Their
 arguments are therefore forfeited. They are, in any event,
 wholly without merit. See Hill v. Dailey, 557 F.3d 437, 439
 (6th Cir. 2009). We also see no basis for transferring this
 case.
                        AFFIRMED
                           COSTS
 No costs.