Brent W. Amos v. Office of Personnel Management

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
BRENT W. AMOS,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1331
______________________
Transferred from the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland, No. 8:24-cv-01699-TDC, Judge
Theodore D. Chuang.
______________________
Before T ARANTO, WALLACH , and CUNNINGHAM , Circuit
Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Following transfer by the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, we directed the parties to
show cause whether this court had jurisdiction over this
action. In response, the Office of Personnel Management
(“OPM”) urges dismissal. ECF No. 10. Brent W. Amos re-
quests the court to “assign this case to a [j]urisdiction or
Case: 25-1331 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 04/28/2025

-- 1 of 4 --

AMOS v. OPM 2
quasi-judicial body with the authority to rule on this case
in the interest of justice.” ECF No. 11 at 3.
In November 2021, Mr. Amos filed an appeal at the
Merit Systems Protection Board seeking to challenge an
OPM determination concerning his continued eligibility in
the Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance (“FEGLI”)
program. In May 2023, an initial decision was issued dis-
missing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because author-
ity to decide FEGLI claims lies exclusively in federal
district courts and the United States Court of Federal
Claims under 5 U.S.C. § 8715, not with the Board. That
decision became the final decision of the Board on June 19,
2023, and Mr. Amos did not appeal to this court.
In June 2024, Mr. Amos filed this action in the District
of Maryland. His Complaint appears to be challenging a
November 13, 2023 OPM letter regarding adjustments to
his Federal Employees Retirement System (“FERS”) annu-
ity as well as OPM’s denial of FEGLI benefits—OPM ac-
tions that Mr. Amos alleges constituted breaches of a prior
settlement agreement. In December 2024, the parties
jointly moved to transfer the action to this court. Because
Mr. Amos was “pursuing claims that affect[ed] his rights
and interests under [FERS],” OPM took the position that it
appeared the proper court for the claims is the Federal Cir-
cuit. ECF No. 1-2 at 243. Based on those representations,
the district court granted the parties’ motion.
There was no plausible basis for the district court to
conclude that we had jurisdiction. This court has no au-
thority to directly review OPM decisions. See Gossage v.
OPM, No. 2021-1026, 2020 WL 11564229, at *1 (Fed. Cir.
Dec. 18, 2020); see generally 28 U.S.C. § 1295. And despite
taking the position that Mr. Amos was appealing a Board
decision concerning his rights under FERS, the parties
point to no Board decision in which Mr. Amos raised a
FERS claim. The only Board decision noted by the parties
is the one dismissing Mr. Amos’s FEGLI claims for lack of
Case: 25-1331 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 04/28/2025

-- 2 of 4 --

AMOS v. OPM 3
jurisdiction. And it does not appear that Mr. Amos filed
this action to challenge that Board decision. See Amos v.
Shriver, No. 8:24-cv-01699 (D. Md. Dec. 2, 2024), No. 12 at
2 (noting the Board’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction on
the ground that the FEGLI claim had to be brought in dis-
trict court is “WHY THIS FEGLI ISSUE . . . IS BEFORE
THIS COURT”).1
Since Mr. Amos indicates he is pursuing this litigation
to challenge the denial of his FEGLI benefits, see ECF No.
11 at 2 (noting he is seeking a “proper accounting of his
FEGLI Insurance benefits”) and he appears to have raised
that claim at least in his Initial Complaint and discussed
FEGLI in his Amended Complaint, we transfer the action
back to the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, taking no
position on OPM’s timeliness arguments. See Taylor v.
Dep’t of Com., 61 F.3d 920 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (unpublished
table decision) (retransferring to the district court when
the complaint represented an original action and not an ap-
peal from the Merit Systems Protection Board).
Accordingly,
1 Had Mr. Amos appealed that Board decision, sum-
mary disposition would have been proper, given the Board
was clearly correct that it lacks jurisdiction over FEGLI
claims. See Miller v. OPM, 449 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (“The jurisdictional provision that governs review of
disputes concerning [the Federal Employees’ Group Life
Insurance Act (“FEGLIA”)], 5 U.S.C. § 8715, provides that
the district courts of the United States have original juris-
diction . . . of a civil action or claim against the United
States founded on FEGLIA.” (cleaned up)).
Case: 25-1331 Document: 15 Page: 3 Filed: 04/28/2025

-- 3 of 4 --

AMOS v. OPM 4
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The official caption is revised as reflected in this order,
and the appeal and all its filings are transferred to the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
April 28, 2025
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 25-1331 Document: 15 Page: 4 Filed: 04/28/2025

-- 4 of 4 --