FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 2 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk. us. District & Bankruptcy Courts for the Dlstrlct at Columbia Gene S. Rana, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) V' ; Case: 1:15-cv—00957 Assigned To : Unassigned Department Ofthe Army’ 3 Assign. Date : 6/22/2015 Defendant. ) Description: Pro Se Gen. ClVll (F Deck) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiffs in forma pauperis application and will dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring dismissal “at any time” jurisdiction is found wanting). Plaintiff, residing in India, sues the United States Army for allegedly retaliating against him because of his whistleblowing activities against his chain of command. Plaintiff sues under the Military Whistleblower Protection Act (MWPA), 10 U.S.C. § 1034. “The MWPA was designed ‘to provide channels within the military through which members of the armed forces could bring their grievances.” ” Klingenschmitt v. United States, 119 Fed.C1. 163, 185 (2014) (quoting Hernandez v. United States, 38 Fed.Cl. 532, 536 (1997)). The MWPA’s “comprehensive [administrative] scheme . . . [does not] provide plaintiffs with a private cause of action to enforce their rights under [the Act] in court.” Id. (citing Soeken v. United States, 47 Fed.Cl. 430, 433 (2000); Acquisto v. United States, 70 F.3d 1010, 1011 (8th Cir. 1995)); see accord Hardy v. Hamburg, No. ll-cv-1739 (RBW), F.Supp.3d 2014 WL 5420037, at *18 (D.D.C. Sept. 23, 2014) (dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction “claims . . . based on reprisals for [plaintiff s] whistleblower activities”) (citing Hernandez, 38 Fed.C1. at 536). A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 62%; w; M United States District Judge DATE: June 18 ,2015