Corrigan v. United States
694 F. App'x 798
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Corrigan appeals a Claims Court dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
- From 1999–2016 Corrigan worked for NCUA; in 2015 he moved to Belfair, WA but his duty station was not updated.
- Corrigan alleges NCUA falsified duty stations and failed to reimburse food and lodging per diem.
- He also alleges NCUA improperly deducted commute time from travel time under the Federal Travel Regulations.
- He filed suit March 31, 2016 seeking FTR-based reimbursements under 5 U.S.C. §§ 5701–10 and § 6101; agency moved to dismiss.
- The Claims Court held the FTR is money-mandating and thus provides jurisdiction, but dismissed for failure to state a claim because commuting expenses aren’t reimbursable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FTR creates a money-mandating right | Corrigan argues FTR provides money-mandating relief. | Government contends CBA procedures govern and FTR does not compel reimbursement here. | Yes; FTR is money-mandating; provides Tucker Act jurisdiction. |
| Whether Corrigan's claim states a plausible travel-reimbursement claim | Corrigan seeks reimbursement for FTR-approved travel expenses. | Corrigan seeks commuting costs not authorized by FTR/regulations. | No; commuting expenses are not reimbursable under FTR here. |
| Whether the Claims Court properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) after determining jurisdiction | Dismissal was premature or improper because jurisdiction existed and facts show a claim. | Even with jurisdiction, Corrigan failed to state a plausible claim. | Affirmed; dismissal for failure to state a claim stands. |
| Whether the Court may consider extrinsic evidence in ruling on the motion | Corrigan complains of reliance on extrinsic evidence in ruling. | Extrinsic materials are public documents/judicially noticeable and permissible. | Kept; extrinsic materials properly considered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Testan v. United States, 424 U.S. 392 (U.S. 1976) (money-mandating standard for Tucker Act claims)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (U.S. 1983) (interpretation of money-mandating statute)
- White Mountain Apache Tribe v. United States, 537 U.S. 465 (U.S. 2003) (fairly interpreted money-mandating standard)
- Adair v. United States, 497 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (distinguishes dismissal for lack of jurisdiction vs. merit-based dismissal)
- Bailey v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 105 (Fed. Cl. 2002) (FTR as money-mandating authority for travel expenses)
- McClary v. United States, 775 F.2d 280 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (travel and transportation moving expenses as money-mandating)
- Mudge v. United States, 308 F.3d 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (CBA framework for money-mandating claims)
- United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465 (U.S. 2003) (reiteration of Mitchell fair interpretation standard)