RILEY
v.
DEPARTMENT OF AIR FORCE; RILEY V. TITUS ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, finding the suit was against the United States without its consent. The court also affirmed the summary judgment, as the administrative discharge procedures were complied with.
Appellant sued for accumulated salary and a declaratory judgment regarding her discharge. The suit was initially remanded for clarification on her sta…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Suit Against The United States cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
No. 11249. The judgment of the District Court dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief’ could be granted is affirmed on the jurisdictional ground, since the suit is one:in fhe District Court against the United States to which it has not consented.
No.
11428. This litigation is before ús a second time. In our previous decision, Riley v. Titus, 1951, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 79, 190 F. 2d 653, certiorari denied, 342 U. S. 855, 72 S.Ct. 82, rehearing denied, 342 U. S. 889, 72 S.Ct. 179, we reversed judgment against appellant and remanded the case for further proceedings. Our reason was that it did not adequately appear from the record that .appellant was an officer of the United States within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1346(d) (2) (Supp. IV, 1951).
We deemed this important in deciding whether or not she was precluded under this statute from maintaining a suit in the District Court for accumulated salary of the position from which she was discharged. Prior to the hearing on the remand the statute was amended so as to bar such suit not only to officers but also to employees. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(d) (2) (Supp, V, 1952).
Since she clearly was one or the other the District Court was without jurisdiction. See Bruner v. United States, 1952, 343 U.S. 112, 72 S.Ct. 581.
Our previous remand also rested upon the confused state of the record as to whether the laws and regulations governing appellant’s discharge had been complied with, as to which she sought a declaratory judgment. We thought summary judgment against her on this aspect of the case should not have been granted. It appears from the record now before us that such laws and regulations were complied with. For this reason the summary judgment now under review was proper, since no case was made for review by the District Court of the administrative discretion which resulted in the discharge. See Levy v. Woods, 1948, 84 U.S.App.D.C. 138, 139, 171 F. 2d 145, 146.
Judgments affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bruner v. United States, 343 U.S. 112 (U.S. 1952)
- Riley v. Titus, 190 F.2d 653 (D.C. Cir. 1951)
- Levy v. Woods, 171 F.2d 145 (D.C. Cir. 1948)
- Riggs v. Eidson, 342 U.S. 889 (U.S. 1951)
- Schechter v. Burford, 342 U.S. 855 (U.S. 1951)
- Sadowy v. Moran, 342 U.S. 855 (U.S. 1951)