Havens v. Mabus
892 F. Supp. 2d 303
D.D.C.2012Background
- Havens seeks APA review to correct his naval records to reflect disability retirement eligibility.
- He served on active duty in the Navy Reserve from 1980 to 1996 and was released in 1996.
- He alleges denial of a medical board evaluation and later requests for correction were mishandled.
- BCNR denied his requests for correction in 2000 and two reconsiderations in 2001.
- He filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims in 2007 seeking monetary and corrective relief; the court dismissed for statute-based reasons in 2008.
- This suit (2010) seeks equitable correction of records under the APA; the court later dismisses on res judicata grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| APA jurisdiction vs Tucker Act | Havens argues APA review is proper in district court. | Tucker Act divests district court and vests jurisdiction in Court of Federal Claims. | Court assumes APA jurisdiction; not barred by Tucker Act. |
| Res judicata prevents suit | No final judgment on the APA claim; not barred. | Prior federal-claims judgment bars relief under res judicata. | Plaintiff's claim barred by res judicata; previous final judgment on merits applies. |
| Same transactional nucleus | APA claim is distinct from prior monetary claim. | Underlying facts and relief sought overlap; same transaction. | Same nucleus; res judicata applies. |
| Privity of parties | Different party names defeat privity. | Government and officials are in privity; precludes relitigation. | Privity exists; res judicata applicable. |
| Court of competent jurisdiction | APA claims could not have been entertained in Court of Federal Claims. | Court of Federal Claims can provide complete relief; competent for entire action. | Court of Federal Claims was competent for the full remedy; jurisdiction proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smalls v. United States, 471 F.3d 186 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (APA claim not barred where relief would come from subsequent proceedings)
- Stanton v. D.C. Court of Appeals, 127 F.3d 72 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (facial challenges may proceed for post-judgment events; not barred by earlier actions)
- Lebrun v. England, 212 F. Supp. 2d 5 (D.D.C. 2002) (accrual of six-year limitations for BCNR-related claims)
- U.S. Indus., Inc. v. Blake Constr. Co., Inc., 765 F.2d 195 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (transactional approach to res judicata)
- Tootle v. Sec'y of Navy, 446 F.3d 167 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (jurisdictional limits and consideration of extrinsic materials on Rule 12(b)(1))
- Kidwell v. Dep't of the Army, Bd. for Corr. of Military Records, 56 F.3d 279 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (definition of 'in essence' monetary relief for Tucker Act purposes)