Frank Palacios v. Richard Spencer , 906 F.3d 124 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •  United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
    Argued September 7, 2018             Decided October 12, 2018
    No. 17-5246
    FRANK PALACIOS,
    APPELLANT
    v.
    RICHARD V. SPENCER, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY,
    APPELLEE
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Columbia
    (No. 1:16-cv-02110)
    Michael D.J. Eisenberg argued the cause and filed the briefs
    for appellant.
    Rachel F. Homer, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice,
    argued the cause for appellee. With her on the brief were Jessie
    K. Liu, U.S. Attorney, and Alisa B. Klein, Attorney. R. Craig
    Lawrence, Assistant U.S. Attorney, entered an appearance.
    Before: GRIFFITH, Circuit Judge, and EDWARDS and
    RANDOLPH, Senior Circuit Judges.
    Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge
    RANDOLPH.
    2
    RANDOLPH, Senior Circuit Judge: Frank Palacios sought
    judicial review of a decision of the Board for Correction of
    Naval Records. The district court, after determining that it
    lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, dismissed Palacios’s
    complaint, denied his motion for leave to amend the complaint,
    and rejected his motion to transfer the case to the United States
    Court of Federal Claims. Palacios v. Spencer, 
    267 F. Supp. 3d 1
    (D.D.C. 2017). Palacios appeals each of the district court’s
    rulings.
    Palacios served in the U.S. Marine Corps from 1992 to
    1995. He received an other-than-honorable discharge stemming
    from his pattern of misconduct. In about 2002 and 2009, he
    sought an upgrade of his discharge on the basis that his
    misconduct resulted from his mental and physical disabilities.
    The Naval Discharge Review Board denied both of his requests.
    Palacios then asked the Board for Correction of Naval Records
    to correct his records. The Correction Board denied his request
    in 2010.
    In response, Palacios filed an action for judicial review of
    the Correction Board’s decision in the Court of Federal Claims.
    The Claims Court dismissed his suit as untimely under the
    statute of limitations applicable to his wrongful-discharge claim.
    Palacios v. United States, 
    100 Fed. Cl. 656
    (2011). The Federal
    Circuit affirmed. Palacios v. United States, No. 2012-5028,
    
    2012 WL 2415348
    (Fed. Cir. Mar. 8, 2012) (per curiam)
    (unpublished order).
    This appeal arises from Palacios’s request that the
    Correction Board reconsider its decision. After the Board
    denied this request in 2015, Palacios filed suit in the United
    States District Court for the District of Columbia. He claimed
    that the Board’s denial of reconsideration was arbitrary and
    capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, and contrary to
    3
    law under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).
    His prayer for relief asked the district court to enter judgment
    correcting his disability rating and discharge, awarding costs and
    attorneys’ fees, and “[g]ranting Plaintiff appropriate back pay
    and benefits that would natural[ly] flow from the upgrade in
    discharge status.” In the alternative, he asked the district court
    to remand to the Correction Board for consideration on the
    merits.
    The government moved to dismiss on the ground that
    Palacios’s complaint fell outside the applicable statute of
    limitations and that it asserted a claim under the Tucker Act over
    which the Court of Federal Claims had exclusive jurisdiction. In
    his opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss, Palacios
    moved for leave to amend his complaint by dropping his request
    for money damages or, in the alternative, to transfer the case to
    the Court of Federal Claims.
    When a party in the district court moves to transfer the case
    to the Court of Federal Claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1631, a statutory
    procedure is triggered: “no further proceedings shall be taken in
    the district court until 60 days after the court has ruled upon the
    motion,” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(4)(B). If the district court grants
    or denies the motion, the Federal Circuit has “exclusive
    jurisdiction of an appeal” from that order. 28 U.S.C.
    § 1292(d)(4)(A). If there is an appeal, the district court’s
    “proceedings shall be further stayed until the appeal has been
    decided.” 
    Id. § 1292(d)(4)(B).
    The district court in this case did not follow this statutory
    procedure, perhaps because neither Palacios nor the government
    brought the governing statutes to the court’s attention. The
    district court, rather than staying its proceedings, denied
    Palacios’s transfer motion, granted the government’s motion to
    4
    dismiss, and denied Palacios’s motion for leave to amend his
    complaint.
    Because the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over
    appeals from orders granting or denying the transfer of an action
    to the Court of Federal Claims, we dismiss for want of
    jurisdiction Palacios’s appeal from that aspect of the district
    court’s judgment. See Murthy v. Vilsack, 
    609 F.3d 460
    , 461–64
    (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    As to the district court’s dismissal of the complaint, we
    agree that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over
    Palacios’s complaint.1 The complaint expressly demanded the
    entry of a judgment including an award of back pay exceeding
    $10,000. Under the Tucker Act, the Court of Federal Claims
    therefore had exclusive jurisdiction over this claim.2 See 28
    1
    While the district court should have waited to rule on the
    government’s motion to dismiss and Palacios’s motion for leave to
    amend until 60 days after it denied the transfer motion, 28 U.S.C.
    § 1292(d)(4)(B), the court’s failure to follow that procedure poses no
    obstacle to our review. As an initial matter, Palacios has forfeited any
    argument about this statute. Moreover, the time for Palacios to appeal
    the denial of his transfer motion to the Federal Circuit has long since
    expired. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B); Sanghi v. West, 
    168 F.3d 1318
    , 
    1998 WL 568814
    (Fed. Cir. 1998) (unpublished table decision)
    (declining jurisdiction over appeal under § 1292(d)(4) filed seven
    months after the district court’s order issued). Requiring the district
    court on remand to wait 60 days before reinstating these orders and
    then requiring Palacios to once again appeal to this court would
    further delay our review without providing Palacios any additional
    benefit.
    2
    The district courts and the Court of Federal Claims generally
    share jurisdiction over Little Tucker Act claims, i.e., those not
    exceeding $10,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2). Palacios alleged
    5
    U.S.C. §§ 1346(a)(2), 1491(a); Schwalier v. Hagel, 
    734 F.3d 1218
    , 1220–22 (D.C. Cir. 2013); Sawyer v. United States, 
    930 F.2d 1577
    , 1580–81 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Van Drasek v. Lehman,
    
    762 F.2d 1065
    , 1067–72 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
    Palacios argues that primarily his complaint sought to
    correct his military records and that the essence of his complaint
    was therefore not monetary. We “look only to the essence of a
    complaint in the absence of an explicit request for monetary
    relief.” 
    Schwalier, 734 F.3d at 1221
    . Our decisions examining
    a complaint’s essence therefore do not apply. See, e.g., Tootle
    v. Sec’y of the Navy, 
    446 F.3d 167
    , 169, 173–77 (D.C. Cir.
    2006); Kidwell v. Dep’t of the Army, Bd. for Correction of
    Military Records, 
    56 F.3d 279
    , 284–86 (D.C. Cir. 1995). It
    follows that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint
    for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Fisher-Cal
    Indus., Inc. v. United States, 
    747 F.3d 899
    , 902–03 (D.C. Cir.
    2014).
    In opposing the government’s motion to dismiss, Palacios
    sought leave to amend his complaint in order to drop his demand
    for back pay. The district court properly denied his motion. The
    amendment would have been futile. Aside from the Tucker Act
    jurisdictional problem, the Board’s denial of Palacios’s request
    for reconsideration is not subject to judicial review because
    Palacios alleges only “material error” in the agency’s original
    decision. Sendra Corp. v. Magaw, 
    111 F.3d 162
    , 166 (D.C. Cir.
    1997) (quoting ICC v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs, 
    482 U.S. 270
    ,
    279 (1978)). As we explained in Sendra, when an agency
    before the Claims Court that he is owed back pay in excess of
    $10,000, and the district court properly read his complaint to seek an
    amount above that threshold. See, e.g., Monk v. Sec’y of the Navy, 
    793 F.2d 364
    , 370 (D.C. Cir. 1986); Doe v. Dep’t of Justice, 
    753 F.2d 1092
    , 1101 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
    6
    merely affirms its original decision in denying a petition for
    reconsideration, it has not rendered a judicially reviewable
    decision. 
    Id. at 167.
    We have recognized two exceptions to this
    general rule. Neither applies here.
    First, a denial of reconsideration may be reviewable, albeit
    under an especially deferential standard of review, when the
    requesting party raises “‘new evidence’ or ‘changed
    circumstances.’” 
    Sendra, 111 F.3d at 166
    (quoting Locomotive
    
    Eng’rs, 482 U.S. at 278
    ). This is so even when the governing
    statute or regulation allows for reconsideration on other bases,
    such as new argument or material error. See Locomotive 
    Eng’rs, 482 U.S. at 277
    –78. Palacios concedes that his request for
    reconsideration raised only a new argument, so this exception
    does not apply.
    Second, courts may review an agency’s decision if the
    agency, despite denying reconsideration, “clearly states or
    indicates that it has reopened the matter.” 
    Sendra, 111 F.3d at 167
    . Otherwise, we do not “look behind the agency’s formal
    disposition of the reconsideration request to see whether the
    agency ‘in fact’ reopened its original decision.” 
    Id. (quoting Locomotive
    Eng’rs, 482 U.S. at 280
    ). Here the Corrections
    Board used boilerplate language in summarily denying
    Palacios’s request.3 This falls far short of the clear indication of
    reopening required to review an agency’s denial of
    reconsideration.
    3
    “After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
    record, the Board found that the new argument made by your attorney
    to the effect that the misconduct which resulted in your discharge was
    causally connected to your ‘diminished physical and mental condition’
    stemming from an injury to your lumbar spine, was insufficient to
    warrant further consideration of your application. Accordingly, the
    Board denied your request.”
    7
    The district court lacked jurisdiction over Palacios’s
    complaint, and it correctly determined that amendment to cure
    the jurisdictional defect would have been futile. We therefore
    dismiss the appeal with respect to the motion to transfer and
    affirm with respect to the motions to dismiss and for leave to
    amend.
    Dismissed in part and affirmed in part.