Brammell v. Springer - Document No. 3
Brammell v. Springer - Document No. 3
Brammell v. Springer - Document No. 3
3
Case 0:07-cv-00018-HRW Document 3 Filed 02/27/2007 Page 1 of 3
The pro se plaintiff, George M. Brammell, lists his address as 477 Falls Branch, Grayson,
Kentucky, 41147. Plaintiff has filed a four-page typewritten “petition for Writ of mandamus” to
which he has attached several documents. Plaintiff alleges that he was denied the proper
employment classification for a specific period of time during his employment by the Department
for Veteran Affairs (“DVA”). Plaintiff has paid the $350.00 filing fee.
This matter is before the Court for initial screening under the authority of Apple v. Glenn,
183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999). Apple v. Glenn permits a district court to conduct a limited
screening procedure and to dismiss, sua sponte, a fee-paid complaint filed by a non-prisoner if it
appears the allegations are “totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit,
or no longer open to discussion.” Id. at 479 (citing Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974)).
DEFENDANT
The plaintiff has named Linda Springer as the defendant in this action. He identifies
Springer as the Director of the United States Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”).
CLAIMS
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 0:07-cv-00018-HRW Document 3 Filed 02/27/2007 Page 2 of 3
The plaintiff states that he retired from the DVA on January 3, 2007. He claims, however,
that for the period of time between November 17, 2002, and January 3, 2007, he should have been
classified as a Grade 14 employee of the DVA. The plaintiff complains that during this period of
RELIEF REQUESTED
The plaintiff seeks an Order of Mandamus from this Court, directing the defendant to correct
his classification status after-the-fact. To the extent that the plaintiff may be arguing that he should
be retroactively awarded a higher pay grade or pay classification, the plaintiff may be asserting a
DISCUSSION
Based on the attachments to the “Petition for Mandamus,” the plaintiff’s claims may be time-
barred or subject to other condition precedents necessary to advance claims against the OPM.
Further development of these issues is required. The Court will require the defendant to answer the
petition/complaint.
CONCLUSION
(1) The Ashland Clerk is directed to issue summons for Linda Springer, Director of
(2) The plaintiff shall be responsible for proper service of the summons and
2
Case 0:07-cv-00018-HRW Document 3 Filed 02/27/2007 Page 3 of 3
the complaint/petition under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, paying particular attention to all
(3) The plaintiff shall keep the Clerk of the Court informed of his current mailing
address. Failure to notify the Clerk of any address change may result in a dismissal of this
case.
(4) For every further pleading or other document he wishes to submit for
consideration by the Court, the plaintiff shall serve upon each defendant, or, if appearance has been
entered by counsel, upon each attorney, a copy of the pleading or other document. The plaintiff
shall send the original papers to be filed with the Clerk of the Court together with a certificate
stating the date a true and correct copy of the document was mailed to each defendant or counsel.
If a District Judge or Magistrate Judge receives any document which has not been filed with
the Clerk or which has been filed but fails to include the certificate of service of copies, the