RICKS v. USA

Filing 6

Order of Dismissal granting 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying, as moot, 5 Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(1); and barring plaintiff from filing a further suit in this court related to matters now twice dismissed as outs ide of our jurisdiction. The clerk's office is directed to refer any future pleadings filed by Ms. Ricks to chambers prior to filing for review for compliance with this order. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Eric G. Bruggink. (dls) Copy to parties. (Plaintiff served via certified mail; Article No. 7014 1200 0000 9093 7016)

0m!$E$x$t
lJntbt @nits! 9rtttes tourt otfr[ers[ @lsims
No. l6-1724C
(Filed: April 13,2017)
* * * * * {, *,t + * * * * *,* * * *,1. !t * *

VIVIAN E. RICKS,

FILED
APR

l3

?017

U.S. COURT OF
FEDERAL CLAIMS

Plaintffi

THE I.]NITED STATES,
Defendant.

****:&**{.xr<!t

*

:t( ,*

*

,*

* * x '} :t *
ORDER

This is plaintiff s second complaint filed within a year concerning her
1992 discharge from the United States Air Force. We dismissed her first
complaint as outside ofthe six-year statute oflimitations and otherwise outside
of ourjurisdiction on July 8, 2016. Ricks v. United States,No. 16-363C (Fed.
Cl. July 8, 2016) (Order dismissing complaint). On December 15,2016, Ms.
Ricks filed a new complaint along with a motionto proceed informa pauperis.
This complaint, although difficult to parse, appears to be alleging some
additional evidence regarding her 1992 discharge and cites the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records'denial letters as giving this court
jurisdiction over her claims. Defendant moved to dismiss the new complaint
on February 13,2017 , asbaned by the doctrine ofcollateral estoppel and' once
again, barred by the statue of limitations (28 U.S.C. $ 2501)' Plaintiff has not
responded to that motion.
We need not wait for a response to defendant's motion because the
complaint must be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction. Putting aside the obvious
bars to her suit from the doctrines of res iudicata and issue preclusion, as we
stated in our prior opinion, her claim is too late. A challenge to a military
discharge gives rise to a claim at the time of discharge. A claimant must thus
bring her challenge to the discharge in court within six years ofthe discharge.
28 U.S.C. $ 2501 (2012). Plaintiff was discharged in1992. It is well past six
years later now. Accordingly, the following is ordered:

?01t{ 1P00 0000 9013

?01,h

1.

For good cause shown, plaintiff s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis is granted.

Plaintiff s complaint is hereby dismissed sua sponte for lack of
jurisdiction pursuant to RCFC 12(hX3).

2.

3. The clerk ofcourt is directed to enter judgment accordingly'
4. Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied as moot.

5.

Plaintiff is hereby barred from filing a further suit in this court
related to matters now twice dismissed as outside of our jurisdiction.
The clerk's office is directed to refer any future pleadings filed by Ms.
Ricks to chambers prior to filing for review by the undersigned for
comoliance with this order.

EzuC G. BRUGGINK
Senior Judge