Rasmussen v. Gray

FILED FEB 1 fl 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Clerk. U.S. District & Bankruptcy FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Courts for the District of Columbia MICHAEL JON RASMUSSEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case: 1:15—cv—00205 V' ) Assigned To : Unassigned ) Assign. Date : 2/10/2015 VINCENT GRAY, 6’1 01., ) Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiff 5 application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. Plaintiff alleges that he “was unexpectedly terminated on June 4, 2012,” Compl. at 2 (page numbers designated by the Court), and that defendants have denied him retirement benefits notwithstanding his more than 37 years of service as a firefighter and an emergency medical technician with the District of Columbia Fire and EMS Department, see id. at 2-3. He asks that this Court order defendants “to pay [him] his full retirement fund, with interest, and . . . full benefits associated with being fully retired[,] to pay the amount of overtime lawsuit settlement money, in full with interest, and to pay for [his] pain and suffering, in the amount of $10,000,000.00 . . . .” Id. at 3. Missing from the complaint is a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the Court’s jurisdiction depends as is required under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and it does not appear that plaintiff has any recourse in the federal courts. See DC. Code §§ 5—721 (directing Mayor to “consider all cases for the retirement of members and all applications for annuities . . . subject to review and final determination by the District of Columbia Retirement Board”), 5—722 (establishing Police and Firemen’s Retirement and Relief Board), 5-743 (authorizing “District of Columbia Retirement Board . . . to determine and fix the amount of the pension relief allowance”); Rife v. District of Columbia Police & Firefighters’ Retirement and Relief Bd. , 940 A.2d 964, 965 (DC. 2007) (review under DC. Code § 2—510 by District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Board decision denying payment of survivor annuity following death of claimant’s husband). The complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. United S es District Judge DATE: 61/ 9/19 “J