Court Opinion

ID: 9385213
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-06 15:00:48.921238+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:59.818896
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-2189    Document: 30     Page: 1   Filed: 04/06/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

            LAUNA GOLDDEEN OGBURN,
                 Plaintiff-Appellant

                             v.

                    UNITED STATES,
                    Defendant-Appellee
                  ______________________

                        2022-2189
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:21-cv-01864-SSS, Judge Stephen S. Schwartz.
                  ______________________

                  Decided: April 6, 2023
                  ______________________

    LAUNA GOLDDEEN OGBURN, Woodbridge, VA, pro se.

     IOANA CRISTEI MEYER, Commercial Litigation Branch,
 Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
 ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
 REGINALD THOMAS BLADES, JR., BRIAN M. BOYNTON,
 PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY.
                   ______________________

    Before TARANTO, CLEVENGER, and HUGHES, Circuit
                       Judges.
Case: 22-2189    Document: 30      Page: 2    Filed: 04/06/2023

 2                                              OGBURN   v. US

 PER CURIAM.
     Laura Golddeen Ogburn (“Ogburn”) appeals from the
 final decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims
 dismissing her complaint for lack of subject-matter juris-
 diction. Ogburn v. United States, No. 21-1864C, 2022 WL
 3210214 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 9, 2022); SAppx1-3. 1 Because the
 Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over Ogburn’s
 claims, we affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
     Ogburn was employed with the Office of the Director of
 National Intelligence (“ODNI”) as the Executive Support
 Assistant until her retirement on or around October 7,
 2012. Ogburn v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 750 F. App’x 990, 990
 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In May 2012, the Office of Personnel Man-
 agement (“OPM”) issued a letter informing Ogburn of its
 approval of her disability retirement application under the
 Federal Employees Retirement System (“FERS”). Id. at
 990-91. In August 2016, after Ogburn’s request for an ex-
 planation of her benefits, OPM issued a letter explaining
 the computation of her FERS annuity and a breakdown of
 her retirement benefit calculations. Id. at 991. On June
 20, 2017, OPM issued an initial decision concerning Og-
 burn’s FERS disability retirement formula and computa-
 tion, cost of living allowance adjustments, and “profile” and
 case status. Id. Upon Ogburn’s request of reconsideration,
 OPM issued its final decision on October 31, 2017, affirm-
 ing its initial decision. Id.
     Ogburn appealed OPM’s final decision to the United
 States Merit Systems Protection Board (the “Board”) in No-
 vember 2017. Id. In addition to challenging the formula
 used in the computation of her FERS retirement, Ogburn
 also challenged personnel actions allegedly taken by ODNI

     1  “SAppx” refers to the supplement appendix the
 government submitted with its informal response brief.
Case: 22-2189     Document: 30     Page: 3    Filed: 04/06/2023

 OGBURN   v. US                                             3

 during her employment. Ogburn v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., No.
 DC-0841-18-0135-I-1, 2017 WL 6497543, at n.2 (M.S.P.B.
 Dec. 13, 2017); SAppx86 n.2. In December 2017, OPM filed
 a motion to dismiss Ogburn’s appeal to the Board because
 OPM had rescinded its final decision and intended to pro-
 vide a new decision addressing the issues Ogburn raised on
 appeal. SAppx86. Accordingly, the Board dismissed Og-
 burn’s appeal because it did not have jurisdiction once
 OPM rescinded its final decision. Id. In a footnote, the
 Board also stated it lacked jurisdiction over Ogburn’s
 claims related to the personnel actions taken by ODNI be-
 cause the Board does not have the authority to review such
 personnel actions by law. Id. n.2.
      Ogburn appealed the Board’s dismissal to this court,
 and we affirmed the Board’s dismissal. Ogburn, 750 F.
 App’x at 992. We also affirmed the Board’s conclusion that
 it lacked jurisdiction over Ogburn’s claims related to per-
 sonnel actions taken by ODNI because as an ODNI em-
 ployee, Ogburn was not an “employee” with appeal rights
 to the Board, as defined by 5 U.S.C. § 7511(b)(7). Ogburn,
 750 F. App’x at 992.
     OPM issued a new final decision on February 5, 2019.
 SAppx95. Ogburn appealed this new final decision to the
 Board, and the Board affirmed OPM’s new final decision on
 July 8, 2019, finding that OPM correctly computed Og-
 burn’s FERS disability annuity involving Social Security
 Disability offset. SAppx98. Ogburn then filed a petition
 for review by the full Board, which is pending. Appellee’s
 Informal Br. 4.
     On September 7, 2021, Ogburn filed a pro se complaint
 in the Court of Federal Claims alleging non-payment of
 back pay and retirement benefits under FERS for over
 $1,000,000. SAppx109-11. Ogburn’s complaint alleged
 that her retirement was not voluntary because ODNI
 placed her on administrative leave without pay before her
 retirement in retaliation for her report of wrongdoing to the
Case: 22-2189    Document: 30     Page: 4    Filed: 04/06/2023

 4                                              OGBURN   v. US

 Inspector General. SAppx115-17. She also alleged that
 ODNI failed to promote her to a GS-14 position, further en-
 titling her to back pay, based on a desk audit in late No-
 vember 2011 in which she and four other individuals were
 deemed “eligible” for promotion. Appellant’s Motion 2 (Jan.
 30, 2023) [ECF No. 26]; see also SAppx 111, 115-17. In ad-
 dition, her complaint alleged that OPM failed to compute
 her FERS retirement entitlement correctly. SAppx148.
 The government moved to dismiss her complaint for want
 of subject-matter jurisdiction. SAppx1.
     The Court of Federal Claims granted the motion to dis-
 miss. SAppx1-3. It reasoned that Ogburn’s claims for back
 pay based on her employment at ODNI, while within the
 court’s Tucker Act jurisdiction, were time-barred by the
 six-year statute of limitations because her complaint came
 more than six years from the alleged acts by ODNI that
 would entitle her to back pay. SAppx2. As for her claims
 to increased FERS benefits, the Court of Federal Claims
 found those claims are outside the court’s jurisdiction, be-
 cause claims subject to the jurisdiction of OPM and the
 Board are beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal
 Claims. Id.; see Lindahl v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 470 U.S.
 768, 773-75 (1985).
     Ogburn timely appealed the Court of Federal Claims’
 decision to this court, and we have jurisdiction under 28
 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). 2

     2   Ogburn filed a motion on January 30, 2023. [ECF
 No. 26]. This motion appears to be a request to have a
 panel of this court consider and decide the appeal. To that
 extent, the motion is denied as moot because this panel has
 decided the appeal. However, the motion also contains ref-
 erences to the merits of the appeal. The panel has treated
 those references as a reply in support of the appeal and
Case: 22-2189     Document: 30      Page: 5    Filed: 04/06/2023

 OGBURN   v. US                                               5

                          DISCUSSION
      We review a Court of Federal Claims decision dismiss-
 ing a complaint for lack of jurisdiction de novo.
 M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d
 1323, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A plaintiff must establish sub-
 ject-matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.
 Id. In conducting the review, we treat the complaint’s fac-
 tual allegations as true and construe them in the light most
 favorable to the non-moving party. Inter-Tribal Council of
 Ariz., Inc. v. United States, 956 F.3d 1328, 1338 (Fed. Cir.
 2020). Although the court affords pro se plaintiffs greater
 leniency in their pleadings, they still have the burden to
 establish the court’s jurisdiction over their claims. Erick-
 son v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Steffen v. United
 States, 995 F.3d 1377, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
     The Court of Federal Claims’ subject-matter jurisdic-
 tion is limited to specific types of claims against the federal
 government, most commonly money claims under the
 Tucker Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); see also Massie v.
 United States, 226 F.3d 1318, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The
 Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over claims for
 money when Congress enacts a “comprehensive remedial
 scheme” assigning jurisdiction elsewhere. See Horne v.
 Dep’t of Agric., 569 U.S. 513, 527-28 (2013). Specifically,
 for claims within the jurisdiction of OPM and the Board,
 the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction. Lindahl,
 470 U.S. at 774-75. The Court of Federal Claims also lacks
 jurisdiction over claims that are outside the statute of lim-
 itations, which is six years unless a statute provides other-
 wise. 28 U.S.C. § 2501; see John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v.
 United States, 552 U.S. 130, 137-38 (2008).

 have taken them into consideration in reaching this deci-
 sion.
Case: 22-2189    Document: 30       Page: 6   Filed: 04/06/2023

 6                                              OGBURN   v. US

      Ogburn does not challenge the Court of Federal Claims’
 holding that it lacks jurisdiction over her complaint. In-
 stead, her briefs argue the facts on which she bases her
 claims for back pay and reexamination of her FERS bene-
 fits. Appellant’s Informal Br. 1-3. Ogburn identifies no er-
 ror in the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdictional decision,
 and she does not articulate any basis for its jurisdiction
 over her claims. Her claims concerning her FERS pay-
 ments must be brought to the Board, which she did, and
 those claims are pending review by the full Board. We find
 no error in the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdictional anal-
 ysis and conclusion. Accordingly, we affirm its judgement
 dismissing Ogburn’s complaint for lack of subject-matter
 jurisdiction.
                        CONCLUSION
    For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the Court of
 Federal Claims’ judgment.
                        AFFIRMED
                            COSTS
 No Costs.