Opinion
Civil Action No. 02-7268
September 20, 2002
MEMORANDUM
This is a pro se action apparently seeking review of a decision by the Railroad Retirement Board ("Board") regarding Plaintiff's employment benefits, payments, allowances, etc. The only reasonable reading of Plaintiff's unclear Complaint shows that Plaintiff seeks review of a decision by the Board pertaining to her employment related benefits and allowances. The Complaint will be dismissed because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review Plaintiff's case.
The Court notes that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to comply, even minimally, with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 8(a). Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Rule 8(a) provides that a complaint must contain: (1) a short plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends, . . . (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Id. Plaintiff's Complaint does not contain any statement regarding the Court's jurisdiction, "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [Plaintiff] is entitled to relief," or a comprehensible "demand for judgment for the relief [Plaintiff] seeks." Id. "While a complaint drafted by a pro se litigant is given more leeway than one drafted by counsel, it must still be comprehensible so as to allow intelligent response." Logan v. Stovall, No. 95-6952, 1996 WL 50550, at * 1 (E.D.Pa. Jan. 31, 1996) (citation omitted).
The Railroad Retirement Act adopts the judicial review provisions and procedures of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act ("Act"), as set forth at 45 U.S.C. § 351 et seq. Bunnion v. Consolidated Rail Corp., No. 97-4877, 1998 WL 32715, at * 9 (E.D.Pa. Jan. 6, 1998). Therefore, "[d]ecisions of the Board must be reviewed in the same manner as decisions made pursuant to the Railroad Unemployment Act." Johnson v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, No. 89-2626, 1990 WL 102773, at * 1 (D.D.C. July 12, 1990) (citing 21 U.S.C. § 231(g)). According to 45 U.S.C. § 355(f), after the exhaustion of all administrative remedies, a person aggrieved by a decision made pursuant to the Act may obtain review of the Board's decision only "in the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which the claimant or other party resides, or will have had his principal place of business or principal executive office, or in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia." 45 U.S.C. § 355(f). Thus, "[t]he clear language of the statute vests the courts of appeals with exclusive appellate jurisdiction." Bunnion, 1998 WL 32715, at *10 (citing Carter v. Railroad Retirement Board., 834 F.2d 62, 63 (3d Cir. 1987)). In fact, "[t]he Third Circuit has confirmed that 'exclusive appellate jurisdiction' for Railroad Retirement Board decisions rests in the courts of appeals." Id. at 9 (citingCarter, 834 F.2d at 63).
In her Complaint, Plaintiff fails to allege that she has exhausted her administrative remedies before the Board, as required by the statute.See 45 U.S.C. § 355(f). However, even if she did, this District Court would not have jurisdiction over Plaintiff's case because review of the Board's decision is solely vested in the appropriate Court of Appeals. Id. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's Complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), the Court is required to dismiss this action, as opposed to transferring it to the proper court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). Rule 12(h)(3) provides that "[w]henever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). Thus, "when a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a case filed in federal court, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the court to dismiss the case."Bradgate Assocs., Inc. v. Fellows, Read Assocs, Inc., 999 F.2d 745, 749 (3d Cir. 1993) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3)).
An appropriate Order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 20th day of September, 2002, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and the Complaint, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Dkt. No. 1) is hereby GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.