Ogburn v. United States
21-1864
| Fed. Cl. | Jan 31, 2022Background
- Pro se plaintiff Launa Golddeen Ogburn sued the United States seeking back pay, a disability annuity, correction of employment records, and other monetary and equitable relief.
- The government moved to dismiss, arguing the statutes and regulations Ogburn cited are not money‑mandating and thus the Court of Federal Claims lacks Tucker Act jurisdiction.
- The court reviewed the Tucker Act requirement that a plaintiff identify a separate money‑mandating source of law and noted relevant precedents defining that requirement.
- The court found the complaint cited potentially money‑mandating laws (the Fair Labor Standards Act and 5 U.S.C. § 5332 concerning GS pay), undermining the government’s categorical dismissal argument.
- The court concluded the complaint nevertheless failed to plead factual details showing entitlement to the specific relief requested and therefore ordered Ogburn to file an amended complaint with a short, plain statement of facts by March 2, 2022.
- The motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice; equitable relief requests were not dismissed as premature and could be appropriate if a money judgment is later awarded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tucker Act jurisdiction / money‑mandating source | Ogburn cites statutes and regulations (including FLSA and pay‑schedule authority) entitling her to money | Government: statutes/regulations cited are not money‑mandating; suit must be dismissed | Court: denial — complaint cites at least some potentially money‑mandating statutes (FLSA, 5 U.S.C. § 5332); cannot dismiss on that ground alone |
| Sufficiency of factual allegations | Ogburn asserts entitlement to back pay and annuity at a given grade | Government contends plaintiff failed to identify a substantive provision mandating payment or facts showing entitlement | Court: complaint is too vague about why she is entitled and amount due; ordered amended complaint stating facts supporting each claimed item of compensation |
| Equitable relief (e.g., record correction, reinstatement) | Ogburn seeks correction of records and related relief | Government: court lacks jurisdiction to issue mandamus and such relief may be improper | Court: did not dismiss equitable claims as premature; such relief may be available as incidental to a money judgment but mandamus is not available |
| Pro se pleadings / liberal construction | Ogburn is pro se and should get liberal construction of filings | Government argues pro se status does not excuse jurisdictional/practice requirements | Court: liberally construes pro se filings and will allow amendment rather than dismissal when a plausible basis for jurisdiction appears |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976) (Tucker Act is jurisdictional and does not itself create substantive money‑mandating rights)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983) (defining when statutes are money‑mandating)
- United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465 (2003) (money‑mandating standard and sovereign obligations)
- Jan’s Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. F.A.A., 525 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (interpretation of money‑mandating requirement)
- Todd v. United States, 386 F.3d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (plaintiff must identify substantive right separate from Tucker Act)
- Abbey v. United States, 745 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (recognizing FLSA as money‑mandating in appropriate federal employment contexts)
- McAllister v. United States, 105 Fed. Cl. 180 (2012) (treating GS pay statute as potentially money‑mandating)
- United States v. Connolly, 716 F.2d 882 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (authority on pay statutes and recovery)
- Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Court of Federal Claims’ limited jurisdiction under the Tucker Act)