292 F. Supp. 3d 446
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Roseberry-Andrews, an Air Force Reserve IMA, suffered two ankle injuries while on active-duty tours (2003–2004; 2006–2007) and sought medical extensions, related benefits, and corrections to personnel records from the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).
- She also alleged retaliatory personnel actions (letters of counseling/reprimand, unfavorable EPRs, transfer to Individual Ready Reserve, unpaid work days, and loss of a requested DCMA-GC assignment).
- She repeatedly petitioned the AFBCMR (initial application in 2007; reconsideration and later submissions), obtaining limited retroactive active-duty extensions but denial of most requested relief; she then filed suit in D.D.C. in 2015 under the APA.
- Her district-court complaint requested a mix of declaratory/mandamus-style relief (remand to AFBCMR) and extensive, itemized monetary relief (back pay, accrued leave with interest, reimbursement of medical and financial losses, attorneys’ fees, etc.).
- The core jurisdictional question was whether her suit "in whole or in part" sought money damages exceeding $10,000, thereby invoking Tucker Act jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims and divesting the district court.
- The Court concluded Roseberry-Andrews explicitly sought specified monetary relief via a remand to the AFBCMR (i.e., relief that would "flow directly" from the court's order), so Tucker Act jurisdiction applied; the case was transferred to the Court of Federal Claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court has jurisdiction given the Tucker Act | Roseberry-Andrews sought review/remand under the APA, not direct monetary recovery; remand only directs AFBCMR to reconsider, so Tucker Act shouldn't apply | Complaint explicitly requests detailed monetary relief (back pay, interest, reimbursements, fees); thus seeks money and falls under the Tucker Act | The Court held plaintiff explicitly sought monetary relief that would flow from the court's order, so Tucker Act applies and the district court lacks jurisdiction |
| Whether framing relief as a remand avoids Tucker Act jurisdiction | Remand-for-review prevents district-court award of money; monetary relief would come later from AFBCMR implementation, so jurisdiction remains in district court | The complaint sought remand "for the following relief" with detailed money claims — effectively asking the court to secure money through AFBCMR, not merely order further proceedings | The Court ruled the phrasing evidenced intent to obtain monetary awards through the court's exercise of jurisdiction; remand framing did not avoid Tucker Act jurisdiction |
| Whether lack of a precise dollar amount defeats Tucker Act trigger | Plaintiff argued she did not specify a dollar sum, so Little Tucker Act threshold not implicated | Defendant argued detailed monetary formulas and categories plainly exceed $10,000; specificity of items shows monetary relief sought | The Court followed precedent rejecting evasion by formula; specificity and likely amount > $10,000 mean Tucker Act applies |
| Whether transfer to the Court of Federal Claims is appropriate | Plaintiff preferred district-court review; argued timely exhaustion and that some claims may not be time-barred | Defendant urged dismissal because some claims (military pay) may be time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2501 | The Court found transfer in the interest of justice: jurisdiction lacking in D.D.C., timeliness uncertain as to some claims, so transfer to CFC under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 was ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Smalls v. United States, 471 F.3d 186 (D.C. Cir.) (claim is within Tucker Act if it explicitly or in essence seeks > $10,000)
- Kidwell v. Dep't of Army, Bd. for Correction of Military Records, 56 F.3d 279 (D.C. Cir.) (bright-line rule: Tucker Act applies when complaint seeks money in whole or in part)
- Schwalier v. Hagel, 734 F.3d 1218 (D.C. Cir.) (district court lacks jurisdiction where complaint unambiguously seeks money damages)
- Tootle v. Sec'y of Navy, 446 F.3d 167 (D.C. Cir.) (district court may keep case if any monetary relief would come only from subsequent administrative proceedings)
- John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (Sup. Ct.) (statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2501 for CFC claims is jurisdictional)
- Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir.) (accrual rule for Tucker Act claims; subsequent AFBCMR orders can be money-mandating)
- Motorola, Inc. v. Perry, 917 F.Supp. 43 (D.D.C.) (monetary relief that would directly flow from court's exercise of jurisdiction brings Tucker Act implications)
- Remmie v. Mabus, 898 F.Supp.2d 108 (D.D.C.) (district courts apply bright-line approach to Tucker Act in this Circuit)