Allen v. United States, 19-1303

Background

Pro se plaintiff Walter Allen filed a handwritten complaint in the Court of Federal Claims alleging NYCERS failed to act on two Form F-349 federal‑income‑tax withholding change forms submitted Dec. 2015 and May 2016.
Each Form F-349 requested an additional monthly withholding amount of "$900,000,000,000,000.00" (written by Allen as "nine hundred trillion dollars"); Allen also sought enormous monetary awards and termination of NYCERS employees.
Allen attached NYCERS letters stating the applications were "successfully processed," but the complaint did not identify any federal statute, contract, or money‑mandating source that would support a claim against the United States.
The court reviewed pro se pleading standards but emphasized that liberal construction does not excuse the requirement to establish subject‑matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act.
The court found Allen’s claims targeted NYCERS (a New York state agency) and its employees rather than the United States and that no money‑mandating legal basis was alleged; it dismissed the complaint with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Because of Allen’s repetitive, frivolous filings, the court ordered an anti‑filing restriction: the Clerk must refer any future filings by Allen to the Chief Judge and accept no filings from him without prior leave.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court has jurisdiction over the claims	Allen contends NYCERS ignored his Form F‑349s and seeks court approval and damages	The United States (and court) argue the complaint targets a state agency/individuals, not the U.S., so CFC lacks jurisdiction	Dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction because the claims target NYCERS (state actor), not the United States
Whether the Tucker Act/money‑mandating requirement is satisfied	Allen requests large monetary relief based on his forms and attached letters	No federal statute, contract, or money‑mandating source is identified that would entitle Allen to payment from the Treasury	Held: jurisdictional requirement unmet; Tucker Act does not confer jurisdiction absent a money‑mandating source
Sufficiency of the pro se complaint under pleading standards	Allen relies on his filings and attachments to show a processed application and entitlement	Defendant argues Allen’s allegations are conclusory, incoherent, and do not plead a plausible claim that raises jurisdictional grounds	Held: even under liberal pro se standards, Allen failed to state a plausible, jurisdictional claim; dismissal appropriate
Whether procedural sanctions / filing restrictions are warranted	Allen sought unlimited hearings and extreme relief; he has a history of repetitive filings	The court notes authority to control its docket and impose sanctions (RCFC 11) to deter frivolous litigation	Held: court imposed an anti‑filing injunction requiring Allen to obtain leave from the Chief Judge before filing further matters; dismissal with prejudice entered

Key Cases Cited

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1972) (pro se complaints are afforded liberal construction)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (complaints must contain more than labels and conclusions)
United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (U.S. 1941) (CFC lacks jurisdiction over claims against non‑United States defendants)
United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (U.S. 1983) (Tucker Act requires an independent money‑mandating source)
United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287 (U.S. 2009) (Tucker Act does not create substantive rights)
Ontario Power Generation, Inc. v. United States, 369 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (three categories of monetary claims under the Tucker Act)
Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1936) (courts have broad authority to control their dockets)