Garcia v. United States

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 22-1222
(Filed: 4 April 2023)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
***************************************
JIM GARCIA, *
*
Plaintiff, *
*
v. *
*
THE UNITED STATES, *
*
Defendant. *
*
***************************************
ORDER
HOLTE, Judge.
On 6 September 2022, pro se plaintiff Jim Garcia filed a complaint alleging military pay
claims, specifically requesting an increase in his Combat Related Special Compensation, ECF
No. 1. On 9 January 2023, the government filed a motion for a scheduling order on
cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record (“cross-MJARs”), ECF No. 11. On 31
January 2023, the Court referred plaintiff for possible pro bono representation and stayed the
case for 60 days (“Pro Bono Referral Order”), ECF No. 14. On 20 March 2023, plaintiff filed a
response to the Pro Bono Referral Order, notifying the Court the pro bono referral was
unsuccessful and plaintiff wished to proceed pro se, ECF No. 15. The next day, plaintiff filed a
motion for summary judgment (“MSJ”), ECF No. 16. Plaintiff argues decisions by the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (“Board”) were arbitrary and capricious for failing to
properly consider evidence before the Board regarding plaintiff’s disability rating from Veterans
Affairs. See generally id.
On 28 March 2023, the government filed a renewed motion for a scheduling order on
cross-MJARs, asserting military pay cases are decided on the administrative record, so an MJAR
rather than an MSJ is the correct procedural posture, ECF No. 17. On 29 March 2023, plaintiff
filed a response to the government’s renewed Motion for Scheduling Order (“Pl.’s Resp.”), ECF
No. 18. Plaintiff requests the Court rule on his MSJ before requiring him to take a position on
the government’s renewed Motion for Scheduling Order, arguing he may file an MSJ pursuant to
Rule 56 of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) regardless of the military pay
nature of the case. Id. at 1–2. On 31 March 2023, the government filed a reply in support of its
renewed Motion for Scheduling Order, maintaining an administrative record must be filed and
clarifying it does not seek remand to the agency, ECF No. 19. 1
“Military pay cases involving decisions of a military correction board and a service
member’s subsequent entitlement to appropriate monetary compensation under the U.S. Code are
reviewed on the administrative record under the same standard as any other agency action.”
Sharpe v. United States, 134 Fed. Cl. 805, 813–14 (2017) (finding judgment on the
administrative record rather than summary judgment the appropriate procedure), aff’d, 935 F.3d
1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Metz v. United States, 466 F.3d 991, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Martinez
v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). The Federal Circuit held in Walls,
“it has become well established that judicial review of decisions of military correction boards is
conducted under the [Administrative Procedure Act (‘APA’)] . . . [and therefore] generally
limited to the administrative record.” Walls v. United States, 582 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir.
2009) (footnote omitted). “[R]eview of a military corrections board is limited to the
administrative record[.]” Id. at 1368. The APA requires a reviewing court to “hold unlawful and
set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be . . . arbitrary, capricious, an abuse
of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law[.]” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Plaintiff states
in his response to the government’s renewed Motion for Scheduling Order: “The underlying
agency . . . has given [its] final decision on the matter before the Court[,] and [its] final decision
is beyond Arbitrary, Capricious and Contrary to the law . . . .” Pl.’s Resp. at 2. The Court
understands plaintiff requests APA review of agency action, see id. at 2–3 (describing the
decision of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records as arbitrary and capricious and
quoting provisions of the APA), so the Court must require the government to file an
administrative record to review the record before the agency. See Sharpe, 134 Fed. Cl. at813–14; Walls, 582 F.3d at 1367–68.
The Court therefore FINDS as MOOT the government’s initial Motion for Scheduling
Order, ECF No. 11, STAYS plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 16, and
GRANTS the government’s renewed Motion for Scheduling Order, ECF No. 17. After the
government files the administrative record, plaintiff may convert his MSJ to an MJAR or refile
his Motion with citations to the administrative record. Further, the Court ADOPTS the
following briefing scheduling, adding seven days to each deadline in the government’s proposed
schedule to account for the days since the filing of the government’s renewed Motion for
Scheduling Order:
1
On 31 March 2023, Mr. Garcia attempted to file a deficient additional brief on this motion, maintaining the
government’s cited cases do not require the filing of an administrative record. The Rules of the Court of Federal
Claims contain no provision for filing a surreply on a motion for a scheduling order, so Mr. Garcia should have filed
a motion for leave to file his additional brief. The Court, however, DIRECTS the Clerk to file Mr. Garcia’s
additional brief received 31 March 2023 as a surreply by leave of court. The Court considers Mr. Garcia’s
arguments in his Surreply in this Order.
-2-
Event Deadline
The government files the administrative 17 April 2023
record
Plaintiff files an MJAR with citations to the 19 May 2023
administrative record or converts his MSJ to
an MJAR
The government files a cross-MJAR and 20 June 2023
response to plaintiff’s MJAR
Plaintiff files a reply in support of his MJAR 14 July 2023
and response to the government’s
cross-MJAR
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Ryan T. Holte
RYAN T. HOLTE
Judge
-3-