Poole

Poole v. Rourke

Good Law
779 F. Supp. 1546·92 Daily Journal DAR 1208·1991 WL 284472·1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19020
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 23, 1991Civ. S-87-1036 MLSCalifornia14,056 words

Opinion

Opinion

Schwartz, J.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on (1) defendants’ motion to transfer the case to the United States Claims Court because of this court’s alleged lack of jurisdiction; (2) defendants’ motion to amend the judgment filed February 21, 1991, to comply with alleged limits on this court’s jurisdiction; and (3) plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees. Both of defendants’ motions relate to the court’s subject matter jurisdiction under the Little Tucker Act, which places a $10,-000 cap on the jurisdiction of district courts in non-tort cases against the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (a)(2) (1988). Defendants contend that because the award sought in this case exceeds $10,000, the action should be transferred to Claims Court. Likewise, they argue that the February 21, 1991 judgment should be amended to avoid exceeding the $10,000 jurisdictional cap.

Plaintiff moves for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2412 , based on his success in obtaining summary judgment: (1) setting aside his honorable discharge; (2) ordering defendants to constructively reinstate him from the time he was improperly discharged through…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.