Court Opinion

ID: 9539236
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 15:01:10.768849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:38.476840
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1316   Document: 20     Page: 1   Filed: 08/07/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                  HARRY J. CONNER,
                   Plaintiff-Appellant

                            v.

                   UNITED STATES,
                   Defendant-Appellee
                 ______________________

                       2023-1316
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:21-cv-02057-RTH, Judge Ryan T. Holte.
                  ______________________

                 Decided: August 7, 2023
                 ______________________

    HARRY JAMES CONNER, Memphis, TN, pro se.

     PATRICK ANGULO, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
 Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
 ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD, PATRICIA
 M. MCCARTHY.
                  ______________________

 Before PROST, HUGHES, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-1316     Document: 20     Page: 2    Filed: 08/07/2023

 2                                               CONNER v. US

 PER CURIAM.
      Harry Conner appeals a decision from the United
 States Court of Federal Claims, dismissing his complaint
 for failure to state a claim and also dismissing his motions
 for reconsideration and to amend the findings of fact and
 conclusions of law. 1 Because Mr. Conner’s complaint was
 barred by the relevant statute of limitations, and because
 the trial court did not abuse its discretion when denying
 Mr. Conner’s motions for reconsideration and to amend the
 findings of fact and conclusions of law, we affirm.
                               I
     Mr. Conner is the listed beneficiary of a Federal
 Employee Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) policy held by his
 deceased mother, who had worked for the United States
 Postal Service. After his mother’s death in February 2010,
 Mr. Conner secured the proceeds of his mother’s policy,
 totaling $14,000 plus $96 in interest. However, Mr. Conner
 alleged that his mother elected to purchase another
 $10,000 in life insurance coverage in 1968 and in 1981, and
 he disputed the amount he was entitled to with the Office
 of Personnel Management (OPM). OPM confirmed the
 amount to Mr. Conner by letter. Mr. Conner then sought
 reconsideration, and OPM again confirmed by letter that
 Mr. Conner had received the right amount. Mr. Conner
 claimed that both letters he received from OPM confirming

     1   Mr. Conner’s notice of appeal could be construed as
 only appealing the trial court’s denial of his motions for re-
 consideration and to amend the findings of fact. But his
 brief also challenges the dismissal of his complaint. Be-
 cause Mr. Conner is pro se, we will assume that he intends
 to appeal both the dismissal of his case and the other two
 motions.
Case: 23-1316    Document: 20     Page: 3    Filed: 08/07/2023

 CONNER v. US                                              3

 the amount of his mother’s policy are “fake,” “forged,” and
 “fabricated.” S.A. 8. 2
     Mr. Conner then initiated two lawsuits in the United
 States District Court for the District of Tennessee,
 claiming that he did not receive the correct payout. Both
 suits were dismissed for failure to state a claim, and both
 dismissals were affirmed by the United States Court of
 Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Mr. Conner then filed suit in
 the Court of Federal Claims, asserting various breach of
 contract claims as well as a claim that he did not receive
 the proper payout from his mother’s FEGLI policy in
 violation of the Back Pay Act. The trial court dismissed
 Mr. Conner’s breach of contract claims, finding that his
 mother’s FEGLI policy did not place him in privity of
 contract with the government. The trial court also found
 that, even if he were in privity of contract with the
 government, Mr. Conner’s breach of contract claims were
 time-barred. The trial court rejected Mr. Conner’s claim
 under the Back Pay Act, noting that it was not a money-
 mandating statute and thus the trial court did not have
 subject-matter jurisdiction. And finally, the trial court
 found that Mr. Conner’s claims were barred under the
 doctrine of res judicata, as they were all raised in the two
 earlier lawsuits filed in the Western District of Tennessee.
 Mr. Conner then filed a motion to amend the findings of
 fact and conclusions of law under Court of Federal Claims
 Rule 52(b), and a motion for reconsideration under Court
 of Federal Claims Rule 59(a). After noting that
 Mr. Conner’s arguments in the motions were all previously
 presented, the trial court denied both motions. Mr. Conner
 now appeals.

    2    S.A. refers to the supplemental appendix attached
 to the government’s informal brief.
Case: 23-1316    Document: 20     Page: 4   Filed: 08/07/2023

 4                                            CONNER v. US

                             II
     We review dismissals for lack of jurisdiction de novo.
 Tex. Peanut Farmers v. United States, 409 F.3d 1370, 1372
 (Fed. Cir. 2005). While pro se pleadings are held to less
 stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
 lawyers, pro se litigants still bear the burden of
 establishing jurisdiction over their claims. Reynolds v.
 Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir.
 1988).
     We review a denial of a motion for reconsideration
 under an abuse of discretion standard. See Mass. Bay
 Transp. Auth. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1367, 1378 (Fed.
 Cir. 2001). And we also review a denial of a motion to
 amend the findings of fact and conclusions of law under an
 abuse of discretion standard. See, e.g., Weatherchem Corp.
 v. J.L. Clark, Inc., 163 F.3d 1326, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
 When deciding whether the trial court abused its
 discretion, we consider whether the “court’s decision was
 based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly
 erroneous factual findings,” or whether the trial court
 “committed a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v.
 Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., Inc., 840 F.2d 1565,
 1567–72 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (internal citations omitted).
                            III
     We first consider whether the trial court properly
 dismissed Mr. Conner’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction,
 and then consider whether the trial court abused its
 discretion by denying Mr. Conner’s motion for
 reconsideration and motion to amend the findings of fact
 and conclusions of law.
                             A
     The trial court found that it lacked jurisdiction over
 Mr. Conner’s claims for several reasons, including that
 those claims were time-barred by the applicable statute of
 limitations. “Every claim of which the United States Court
Case: 23-1316     Document: 20     Page: 5    Filed: 08/07/2023

 CONNER v. US                                                5

 of Federal Claims has jurisdiction shall be barred unless
 the petition thereon is filed within six years after such
 claim first accrues.” 28 U.S.C. § 2501. We have held that a
 claim accrues “when all the events have occurred which fix
 the liability of the Government and entitle the claimant to
 institute an action.” Goodrich v. United States, 434 F.3d
 1329, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted).
 Here, the trial court correctly found that Mr. Conner’s
 claims accrued the day he received the FEGLI benefit
 payments, which was on June 25, 2010. But Mr. Conner
 did not file his complaint in the Court of Federal Claims
 until over ten years later, on October 18, 2021. We are
 unpersuaded by Mr. Conner’s argument that the trial court
 “failed to consider any facts or circumstances” regarding
 the timing of the case, because the trial court did explain
 why his claims fell outside the relevant statute of
 limitations. See Appellant’s Br. at 1. Thus, even taking all
 of Mr. Conner’s allegations as true, the trial court correctly
 found that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over
 Mr. Conner’s claims.
                               B
     Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying
 Mr. Conner’s motions for reconsideration and to amend the
 findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court
 explained that Mr. Conner’s arguments in both motions
 “were all previously presented,” and did not change the fact
 that it did not have jurisdiction over Mr. Conner’s claims.
 S.A. 4. Mr. Conner’s brief on appeal merely reiterates that
 the trial court did not consider all the facts in the record.
 His brief also does not explain how his claims were not
 time-barred such that the trial court would have
 jurisdiction over those claims. We therefore find that the
 trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying both of
 Mr. Conner’s motions.
Case: 23-1316    Document: 20      Page: 6   Filed: 08/07/2023

 6                                             CONNER v. US

                             IV
    We have considered the rest of Mr. Conner’s arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. Thus, we affirm the Court of
 Federal Claim’s determination that it did not have subject-
 matter jurisdiction over Mr. Conner’s claims.
                       AFFIRMED
                           COSTS
 No costs.