Holland v. United States ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Case: 21-1027    Document: 22    Page: 1   Filed: 09/01/2021
    NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    ______________________
    LEE HOLLAND, JR.,
    Plaintiff-Appellant
    v.
    UNITED STATES,
    Defendant-Appellee
    ______________________
    2021-1027
    ______________________
    Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
    in No. 1:20-cv-00119-MBH, Senior Judge Marian Blank
    Horn.
    ______________________
    Decided: September 1, 2021
    ______________________
    LEE HOLLAND, JR., Livingston, TX, pro se.
    JOSHUA A. MANDLEBAUM, Commercial Litigation
    Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
    tice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also repre-
    sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, STEVEN JOHN GILLINGHAM,
    MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR.
    ______________________
    Before DYK, LINN, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
    Case: 21-1027    Document: 22     Page: 2    Filed: 09/01/2021
    2                                            HOLLAND   v. US
    PER CURIAM.
    Lee Holland, Jr. appeals a decision of the United States
    Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) that dismissed his
    complaint for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    Mr. Holland served in the U.S. Navy from May 11,
    1961, until he retired on July 1, 1990. In 1971, Mr. Holland
    received an Associate of Science Degree after completing
    the Navy’s Associate Degree Program. The Navy then as-
    signed him to work at a medical and dental clinic in Long
    Beach, California, as a dental technician.
    In January 1974, Mr. Holland applied for an appoint-
    ment as a commissioned officer in the Medical Service
    Corps. In the spring of that year, Mr. Holland experienced
    medical problems, including pain and swelling in his joints,
    and was hospitalized on May 14, 1974. On May 29, the
    Navy selected Mr. Holland for Medical Service Corps ap-
    pointment at the rank of ensign, beginning August 1, 1974.
    While he was hospitalized, however, Mr. Holland was diag-
    nosed with rheumatoid arthritis, and a medical examiner
    concluded that he was unfit for duty. As a result, at the
    request of his commanding officer, Mr. Holland’s Medical
    Service Corps appointment documents never issued.
    After referral to a physical evaluation board in late
    1974, Mr. Holland was transferred to the Temporary Disa-
    bility Retirement List (“TDRL”) on February 26, 1975. On
    January 31, 1980, the Secretary of the Navy determined
    that Mr. Holland was physically fit for active duty, and on
    October 1, 1980, he was removed from the TDRL. On Oc-
    tober 2, 1980, Mr. Holland reenlisted. 1 He continued to
    1  While it does not appear relevant to the present ap-
    peal, while Mr. Holland was on TDRL, he attended law
    Case: 21-1027      Document: 22    Page: 3    Filed: 09/01/2021
    HOLLAND   v. US                                             3
    serve on active duty until he was transferred to the fleet
    reserve on February 28, 1989, and thereafter, on July 1,
    1990, retired from the Navy.
    In 1983, Mr. Holland petitioned the Board for the Cor-
    rection of Naval Records, seeking reinstatement of his ap-
    pointment to the Medical Service Corps, which the Board
    denied. He next petitioned the Board in 2018, almost thirty
    years after his retirement, seeking the same remedy. Spe-
    cifically, in 2018, Mr. Holland requested to be retroactively
    appointed a commissioned officer in the Medical Service
    Corps and to “receive incremental grade advancements,”
    i.e., promotions, “to the rank of O-5 [commander] or O-6
    [captain] as of July 1990.” S.A. 28.
    During its most recent review, the Board determined
    that Mr. Holland’s petition was “not filed in a timely man-
    ner” but “found it in the interest of justice to waive [its]
    statute of limitations [to] consider [Mr. Holland’s] case on
    its merits.” Id. at 27. 2 After consideration of his petition,
    the Board denied his requests on August 27, 2019, conclud-
    ing that he “did not meet the qualifications to receive [his]
    appointment [to the Medical Service Corps] due to not be-
    ing physically qualified.” Id. at 28. The Board also
    school. After Mr. Holland reenlisted, he unsuccessfully ap-
    plied for a commission in the Judge Advocate General’s
    Corps.
    2   When Mr. Holland filed his 2018 petition, the ap-
    plicable statute of limitations to file a petition before the
    Board was three years. 
    32 C.F.R. § 723.3
    (b) (2020) (“Appli-
    cations for correction of a record must be filed within 3
    years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.”).
    This limitations period, however, may be “excused by the
    Board if it finds it would be in the interest of justice to do
    so,” as the Board so found here. 
    Id.
    Case: 21-1027    Document: 22      Page: 4    Filed: 09/01/2021
    4                                             HOLLAND   v. US
    concluded that, because Mr. Holland was never commis-
    sioned, he was “never eligible for any officer advance-
    ments.” 
    Id.
    Mr. Holland sought review of the Board’s 2019 decision
    in this court on October 3, 2019. On January 29, 2020, we
    explained that we “do not have the authority to review ap-
    peals directly from the [Board]” and transferred the case to
    the Claims Court. Order at 2, Holland v. United States,
    No. 20-1028 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 29, 2020), ECF No. 13.
    In his Claims Court complaint, Mr. Holland sought the
    relief requested in his 2018 Board petition as well as mon-
    etary relief in the amount of “reasonable rank advance-
    ment wages,” “loss of social ‘prestige’ opportunities and
    experience,” and “administrative efforts, attorney fees[,]
    and court costs.” Holland v. United States, 
    149 Fed. Cl. 543
    , 546 (2020). The Claims Court dismissed Mr. Holland’s
    complaint on a variety of grounds, including for want of ju-
    risdiction. In particular, the Claims Court found that the
    complaint was time-barred under the applicable statute of
    limitations (
    28 U.S.C. § 2501
    ) and that the petition Mr.
    Holland filed with the Board in 2018 did not toll the stat-
    ute-of-limitations period or affect when the claim accrued. 3
    Mr. Holland appeals. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1295
    (a)(3).
    3   The alternative grounds of the Claims Court’s dis-
    missal included that military promotion decisions are typ-
    ically not subject to judicial review and that the Claims
    Court does not have jurisdiction over claims arising under
    the Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, the
    Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 
    42 U.S.C. §§ 12101
    –12213, or criminal statutes.
    Case: 21-1027      Document: 22    Page: 5    Filed: 09/01/2021
    HOLLAND   v. US                                             5
    DISCUSSION
    We review the Claims Court’s dismissal for a lack of
    jurisdiction de novo. Sioux Honey Ass’n v. Hartford Fire
    Ins. Co., 
    672 F.3d 1041
    , 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Mr. Holland,
    as the plaintiff, bore the burden of establishing jurisdic-
    tion. Brandt v. United States, 
    710 F.3d 1369
    , 1373 (Fed.
    Cir. 2013).
    As relevant here, for the Claims Court to have jurisdic-
    tion under the Tucker Act, “[a] claim . . . must be filed
    within six years of its accrual date.” Goodrich v. United
    States, 
    434 F.3d 1329
    , 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing 
    28 U.S.C. § 2501
    ). A claim accrues “when all the events which
    fix the government’s alleged liability have occurred and the
    plaintiff was or should have been aware of their existence.”
    Hopland Band of Pomo Indians v. United States, 
    855 F.2d 1573
    , 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (emphasis omitted); see also
    Martinez v. United States, 
    333 F.3d 1295
    , 1303 (Fed. Cir.
    2003) (en banc) (“A cause of action cognizable in a Tucker
    Act suit accrues as soon as all events have occurred that
    are necessary to enable the plaintiff to bring suit . . . .”).
    On appeal, Mr. Holland continues to argue that he was
    entitled to have his appointment to the Medical Services
    Corps restored and to incremental promotions that pur-
    portedly would have stemmed from that appointment. The
    relevant events giving rise to Mr. Holland’s petition to the
    Board (and claim before the Claims Court) appear to have
    occurred between 1974 and 1980. Mr. Holland does not ar-
    gue otherwise. On its face, Mr. Holland’s complaint was
    untimely.
    As the Claims Court concluded, Mr. Holland’s “most re-
    cent appeal to the [Board] is not relevant for determining
    if his recently filed [Claims Court] complaint . . . [was]
    timely.” Holland, 149 Fed. Cl. at 553. The Board’s waiver
    of the limitations period governing petitions to the Board
    Case: 21-1027     Document: 22      Page: 6   Filed: 09/01/2021
    6                                              HOLLAND   v. US
    has no impact on the six-year statute of limitations appli-
    cable to the Claims Court. As we explained in Martinez,
    this court and the Court of Claims have long held
    that, in Tucker Act suits, a plaintiff is not required
    to exhaust a permissive administrative remedy[,
    such as seeking relief from a correction board,] be-
    fore bringing suit. As a corollary of that rule, the
    court has held that a plaintiff’s invocation of a per-
    missive administrative remedy does not prevent
    the accrual of the plaintiff’s cause of action, nor
    does it toll the statute of limitations pending the
    exhaustion of that administrative remedy.
    
    333 F.3d at 1304
    . Because Mr. Holland failed to timely
    seek relief at the Claims Court, the Claims Court was with-
    out jurisdiction to hear his claim.
    Given our conclusion that the Claims Court correctly
    determined that Mr. Holland’s claim was time barred, we
    need not address the Claims Court’s alternative grounds of
    dismissal.
    AFFIRMED
    COSTS
    No costs.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-1027

Filed Date: 9/1/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/1/2021