Jurich v. United States, 16-1711

Background

George Jurich, pro se, an inmate since 1984, sues the United States seeking back pay under the Military Pay Act and damages for alleged tortious conduct by Air Force and DoD officials.
Jurich claims he was never discharged from the Air Force, asserting entitlement to back pay for periods when his pay was allegedly improperly withheld (1984–1985) and further back pay through the present.
He alleges the Air Force illegally withheld his military pay during incarceration and that his final discharge papers are unavailable, purportedly demonstrating ongoing active duty status.
The government moves to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; Jurich seeks appellate-style relief, including reconsideration of a prior order and counsel.
The court analyzes Tucker Act jurisdiction, the propriety of tort claims in the Court of Federal Claims, and the accrual and timeliness of Military Pay Act claims.
The court concludes it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over all of Jurich’s claims and dismisses the complaint without prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court has Tucker Act jurisdiction over Jurich’s MPA claim	Jurich contends the MPA creates a money-damages right against the United States.	Government argues jurisdiction exists only for claims arising from contract, statute, regulation, or constitutional provision, not torts, and that accrual/limits bar jurisdiction.	No jurisdiction over MPA claim due to accrual and jurisdictional statute of limitations.
Whether Jurich’s claims sounding in tort are within the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction	Jurich asserts tort-based damages against federal officials.	Tort claims against federal officials are outside the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction.	Lacks jurisdiction over tort-based claims against officials; not within CFC.
Whether the court may entertain official-capacity claims against Air Force/DoD officials	Jurich seeks damages from officials acting in their official capacities.	CFC cannot entertain claims against individuals, only against the United States.	Claims against named officials in official capacities are outside the court’s jurisdiction.
Whether the six-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2501 bars Jurich’s MPA claim	Limitations should not bar since discharge status is unresolved in his favor.	Section 2501 is jurisdictional and accrues on discharge or equivalent, rendering the claim time-barred.	Statute is jurisdictional and time-barred; no timely MPA claim.
Whether the MPA allows pay while incarcerated or while not discharged	He remained on active duty and thus entitled to pay.	Service members are not entitled to pay while absent due to incarceration.	Even if jurisdiction existed, the MPA would not support pay during incarceration; claim lacking merit.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (U.S. 1983) (Tucker Act founded; sovereign immunity is waived for money damages)
United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (U.S. 1976) (Tucker Act does not create substantive rights; requires an independent basis)
Jan's Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. FAA, 525 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (requires independent substantive right for money damages under Tucker Act)
Golden Pacific Bancorp v. United States, 15 F.3d 1066 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (limitations on money-damages claims under Tucker Act)
Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (tort claims outside Court of Federal Claims)
United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (U.S. 1941) (limits on suing federal officials; jurisdictional scope)