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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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.
