Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Brammell v. Springer - Document No. 3

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 3

Brammell v. Springer Doc.

3
Case 0:07-cv-00018-HRW Document 3 Filed 02/27/2007 Page 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION OR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION at ASHLAND

CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-CV-18-HRW

GEORGE M. BRAMMELL PLAINTIFF

VS: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

LINDA M. SPRINGER, DIRECTOR,


UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT DEFENDANT

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

time the DVA continued to classify him only as a Grade 13 employee.

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

potential demand for monetary compensation.

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

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

(1) The Ashland Clerk is directed to issue summons for Linda Springer, Director of

the United States Office of Personnel Management.

(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

applicable provisions of Fed.R.Civ.P. 4.

(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

document will be disregarded by the Court.

This February 27, 2007.

You might also like