Marilyn Tillman-Conerly v. Opm

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 23 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARILYN TILLMAN-CONERLY, No. 23-16120 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-01617-DAD-AC v. MEMORANDUM* OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; LAVERNE WATSON, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 17, 2024** Before: WARDLAW, BADE, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Marilyn Tillman-Conerly appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action concerning her federal retirement benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 889 F.3d * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 956, 963 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Tillman-Conerly’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because, under the Civil Service Reform Act, Tillman- Conerly was required to adjudicate her claims before the Office of Personnel Management (“Office”), the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”), and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 8347(b), (d) (stating that “[t]he Office shall adjudicate all claims” concerning retirement benefits and that its decisions may be appealed to the Board); 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b) (explaining that certain petitions for review of Board decisions must be filed in the Federal Circuit); 28 U.S.C § 1295(a)(9) (providing the Federal Circuit with “exclusive jurisdiction” over appeals of the Board’s final orders); Lindahl v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 470 U.S. 768, 792 (1985) (“Sections 1295(a)(9) and 7703(b)(1) together appear to provide for exclusive jurisdiction over [Board] decisions in the Federal Circuit . . . .”). AFFIRMED. 2 23-16120