Robinson v. United States
17-417
| Fed. Cl. | Dec 13, 2017Background
- Howard Robinson, a retired DoD annuitant, sued the United States seeking about $8,600 and an order vacating OPM's removal of three children from his federal health plan and reinstating their coverage.
- Robinson proceeded pro se; he alleged OPM erred by removing his children pursuant to a state court divorce order.
- The United States moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) (lack of subject matter jurisdiction) and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim).
- Plaintiff pointed to FEHBA, the Affordable Care Act, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Children’s Equity Act as bases for relief but did not identify a money-mandating statute.
- The court took judicial notice of the state court divorce order directing removal of the children from coverage.
- The court granted the motion: dismissing for lack of jurisdiction (no money-mandating source) and alternatively for failure to state a claim; final judgment entered for the government without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court has Tucker Act jurisdiction to award monetary damages for OPM's alleged removal of children from FEHBA coverage | Robinson contends statutes (FEHBA, ACA, Children's Equity Act) require continued coverage and support monetary relief | No money-mandating provision identified; FEHBA and cited statutes do not obligate the United States to pay damages for such administrative errors | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — plaintiff failed to identify a money-mandating source |
| Whether the court may order reinstatement or issue declaratory relief directing OPM to reinstate children | Robinson seeks reinstatement/record correction and declaratory relief enforcing continued coverage | Such non-monetary relief is not available absent jurisdiction based on a money-mandating statute; court cannot issue orders that effectively reverse state-court rulings | Dismissed — court lacks power to grant requested non-monetary relief absent money-mandating statute |
| Whether the court can review or reverse the state court order that led to OPM’s action | Robinson challenges OPM’s compliance with a state-court divorce decree and seeks relief contrary to that decree | Federal Claims Court cannot review or alter state court judgments; OPM’s compliance with the state order does not create a Tucker Act claim | Dismissed — court powerless to review state court decisions; the state order cuts against plaintiff’s requested relief |
| Whether Robinson has a contract claim against the United States for health benefits | Plaintiff characterizes his rights as arising from a "health care contract" with OPM | Employee benefit rights arise from statute, not an enforceable contract with the United States | Dismissed — benefits are statutory, not contractual, so no contract-based Tucker Act claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Roche v. U.S. Postal Serv., 828 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (pro se pleadings entitled to liberal construction)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se complaints held to less stringent standards)
- Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (1974) (courts assume allegations true on jurisdictional motion)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility and context-specific pleading standard)
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976) (Tucker Act requires a money-mandating source for jurisdiction)
- Rosano v. United States, 9 Cl. Ct. 137 (1985) (FEHBA contains no money-mandating provision supporting damages claim)
- Schism v. United States, 316 F.3d 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (federal employee benefits are statutory, not contractual)
- Beachboard v. United States, 727 F.2d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (limitations on declaratory relief from this court)
- Voge v. United States, 844 F.2d 776 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (correction of administrative records in this court requires jurisdiction based on money-mandating statute)