Citations
- 158 F. Supp. 948
Full opinion text
FAHY, Circuit Judge, sitting by designation.
Plaintiff was employed in the Department of Justice as a trial attorney, Grade GS-13, a position in the classified civil service. On August 26, 1953, he received a letter from the Acting Attorney General stating that his appointment was terminated and that this action was due to budget limitations and organization changes and “is not intended as a reflection on you.” The effective date was extended to October 15, 1953. Plaintiff wrote to the Civil Service Commission on August 30, 1953, setting forth in substance the above and other facts he deemed relevant. He requested “that my appeal be noted with respect to the above mentioned action of the Department of Justice.” The Commission on or about September 21, 1953, advised plaintiff that his letter did not give sufficient information and requested that he fill out an enclosed form and return it with the supplemental data thus requested. This ■form was entitled “Reduetion-in-Force Appeal — Request for Additional Information.” The letter stated the material .■should be returned within 15 days, '“otherwise we must assume you are not interested in pressing your appeal which will be considered closed.” Plaintiff did mot respond.
On October 12, 1953, plaintiff was •transferred to a position in the Federal .'Housing Administration, where a year Hater he was promoted to the same grade .■and salary he had received in the Department of Justice. In the interim the ■difference in salary amounted to $850, .and it is for this amount he now sues.
Defendant has moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative ■remedies. Plaintiff has filed a cross-motion for summary judgment contending that resort to an administrative remedy was not necessary in his case .and that as a matter of law his removal from the position in the Department of Justice was illegal, thereby entitling him ■to summary judgment.
We are of the opinion that plaintiff’s ■claim must fail for failure to exhaust .administrative remedies. Other than .sending the letter of August 30, 1953 to ■the Civil Service Commission, plaintiff ■ did nothing pertinent to his case until on ■or about May 20, 1955, when he again ■contacted the Civil Service Commission .about an appeal from his termination of -employment with the Department of Justice. This was subsequent to the decision