You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Sosa v. Secretary, Department of Defense

Citation: 47 F. App'x 350Docket: No. 02-5488

Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; September 24, 2002; Federal Appellate Court

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil
Jonas Sosa, Sr. appeals a district court's dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, which governs claims against the United States. Sosa sought monetary and declaratory relief from the Department of Defense and the Department of the Army, arguing they failed to correct his military records to reflect a total medical disability from 1991. The district court determined it lacked jurisdiction and declined to transfer the case to the United States Court of Federal Claims, citing the statute of limitations. 

The appellate panel unanimously agreed that oral argument was unnecessary and affirmed the dismissal. The court emphasized that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving jurisdiction when challenged. It reiterated that under the Tucker Act, the Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over claims exceeding $10,000 that do not sound in tort. Sosa's claims were found to primarily seek monetary compensation from the government, which cannot be circumvented by seeking declaratory or injunctive relief. 

The background of Sosa's claims revealed that he was initially rated 10% disabled upon discharge in 1991, later increasing to 100% disability in 2000. He petitioned for a correction of his service records to reflect a medical retirement, asserting he deserved greater disability benefits based on his condition at the time of discharge. The Army's Board for the Correction of Military Records denied his request, agreeing that the original rating was accurate. The appellate court concluded that Sosa did not establish jurisdiction and acknowledged that any potential recovery would exceed $10,000.

The Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over Sosa's complaint, rendering the district court without subject matter jurisdiction to address the case. The district court opted not to transfer the case to the Court of Federal Claims, citing that Sosa’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, a district court lacking subject matter jurisdiction must transfer a case seeking review of an administrative action if it serves the interests of justice. Despite recognizing its authority to transfer, the district court deemed it futile, as Sosa’s claims were not filed within the six-year limit imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 2501, which requires claims to be filed within six years of accrual. The district court determined that Sosa's claims accrued at his discharge in 1991, making his November 2001 complaint untimely.

However, legal precedent indicates that different courts have varying interpretations of when a claim accrues: the Federal Circuit holds that accrual occurs at discharge, while other courts assert it begins upon the military review board's decision. The ABCMR denied Sosa's petition in April 2001, and he filed his suit in November 2001, suggesting his claim could be timely if it accrued with the ABCMR's decision. Given the Federal Circuit's reconsideration of the accrual rule from the Hurick decision, the prudent action is to transfer Sosa’s complaint to the Court of Federal Claims for a determination on the statute of limitations. The court affirms the district court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction but vacates its decision against transfer, remanding the case for transfer to the Court of Federal Claims.