Shinogee Ex Rel. Duffy v. Fanning
234 F. Supp. 3d 39
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Shinogee was administratively discharged from the Army in 1985 with an "other than honorable" characterization after psychiatric hospitalization and drug/AWOL incidents.
- He was later diagnosed with schizophrenia and pursued VA benefits; the Board of Veterans’ Appeals changed eligibility rules in 2003 that could affect his benefits.
- Shinogee sought reconsideration from the Army Board for Correction of Military Records; the Board returned his 2003/2004 request for reconsideration as untimely on December 16, 2004.
- The claim accrual date is agreed to be December 16, 2004; 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) provides a six-year jurisdictional limitations period, with a three-year extension for persons under legal disability at accrual.
- Shinogee (via guardian) filed this APA suit in December 2015, arguing tolling under § 2401(a)’s legal disability provision for a period roughly mid-2010 to early 2013.
- The District Court granted the Government’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion, holding Shinogee failed to show a continuous legal disability beginning at accrual and thus the suit was time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2401(a) is tolled by plaintiff's alleged legal disability | Shinogee contends he was under continuous legal disability (mid-2010–early-2013), so suit filed within three years after disability ceased is timely | The Government contends plaintiff cannot show a legal disability existing at claim accrual (Dec. 16, 2004) and continuous through the tolling period | Court held plaintiff failed to show disability existed at accrual and was continuous; claim is time-barred under § 2401(a) |
| Whether equitable tolling or waiver applies to § 2401(a) | Plaintiff urged tolling principles and equitable relief | Government asserted § 2401(a) is jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling | Court declined equitable tolling arguments, noting § 2401(a) is jurisdictional and cannot be tolled |
| Whether materials outside the pleadings may be considered on Rule 12(b)(1) | N/A (court may consider outside materials) | N/A | Court considered records, guardian appointment, and VA/medical documents in resolving jurisdictional facts |
| Whether appointment of guardian in 2012 would cure disability for tolling purposes | Plaintiff’s filings suggested guardian role began in early 2013; argued disability continued through early 2013 | Government argued appointment in May 2012 restored capacity, ending any tolling window earlier | Court did not need to resolve the guardian-date argument because plaintiff failed to show disability at accrual; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (plaintiff bears burden to establish standing/jurisdiction by preponderance)
- Spannaus v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 824 F.2d 52 (28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) is a jurisdictional condition and must be strictly construed)
- John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (statutory limitations tied to sovereign immunity are not subject to equitable tolling)
- Goewey v. United States, 612 F.2d 539 (legal disability defined; presumption of sanity and competency)
- Tansil v. United States, 113 Fed. Cl. 256 (legal disability must exist at accrual and be continuous to toll Tucker Act-style limitations)
- Hyde v. United States, 85 Fed. Cl. 354 (legal disability must prevent comprehension of legal rights and access to courts to toll limitations)