Guice v. Secretory, Department of Labor, 102518 FED11, 17-12183
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM:|
|Party Name:||CELESTE L. GUICE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Defendant-Appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||October 25, 2018|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit|
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:15-cv-02935-JDW-TBM
Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
Celeste Guice is a Group Leader Mail Handler with the United States Postal Service. Pursuant to the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. ("FECA"), she filed a complaint in federal court against the Secretary of the Department of Labor challenging administrative decisions leading to the denial of her claim for workers' compensation benefits. Guice, who is proceeding pro se, now appeals the district court's orders dismissing her amended complaint and denying her motion to vacate all orders entered by the district court after August 8, 2016. First, Guice argues that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over her FECA claim because she colorably alleged a constitutional violation. Second, she contends that the district court abused its discretion when it entered orders after August 8, 2016, the date the Department's answer to the amended complaint was due. Third, she asserts that the district court abused its discretion when it dismissed her amended complaint without a hearing. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Whether a district court has subject matter jurisdiction to decide a case is a question of law to be reviewed de novo.
See Pintando v. Miami-Dade Hous. Agency, 501 F.3d 1241, 1242 (11th Cir. 2007).
FECA is a federal employee's exclusive remedy against the federal government for job-related injuries. Noble v. United States, 216 F.3d 1229, 1234 (11th Cir. 2000). Under FECA, a federal employee is guaranteed the right "to receive immediate, fixed benefits, regardless of fault and without need for litigation, but in return [she] lose[s] the right to sue the Government." Id. (quoting Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 460 U.S. 190, 194 (1983)). Instead of pursuing claims through the courts, the employee must...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP