Allen v. United States
21-1631
| Fed. Cir. | Jan 20, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Derrick Michael Allen, Sr. sued in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims seeking money damages for alleged USPS misconduct: denied PO‑box refund, non‑delivery of ordered stamps, refusal to link an online account without his signature, and alleged mishandling/withholding of mail.
- Allen relied principally on 39 U.S.C. § 409(h) as the basis for monetary relief.
- The Court of Federal Claims dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction, concluding Allen failed to identify a money‑mandating source under the Tucker Act and that mail‑handling allegations sounded in tort.
- The trial court explained § 409(h) presumes a preexisting judgment against the Postal Service and does not itself create a money‑mandating right enforceable in the Court of Federal Claims.
- Allen also argued breach of contract and a Seventh Amendment jury‑trial right; the trial court rejected these as jurisdictional bases.
- The Federal Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims has Tucker Act jurisdiction over Allen's claims | Allen: § 409(h) and other law entitle him to money damages from the USPS | US: Tucker Act requires a separate money‑mandating source; none exists here | No jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether § 409(h) supplies a money‑mandating source | Allen: § 409(h) obligates USPS to pay judgments and thus supports his claim | US: § 409(h) assumes an existing judgment and does not create an independent right to money | § 409(h) is not money‑mandating for Tucker Act purposes |
| Whether mail‑handling allegations are within CFC jurisdiction or are torts | Allen: mishandling/withholding warrant money damages here | US: allegations sound in tort and are excluded from CFC jurisdiction | Claims sounding in tort are outside CFC jurisdiction |
| Whether Allen formed an enforceable contract with USPS | Allen: ordering stamps and renting a P.O. box created a contract breached by USPS | US: Allen did not plead the required elements (explicit agreement, authority to bind, entitlement to money) | No valid contract pleaded for Tucker Act relief |
| Whether Seventh Amendment jury‑trial right creates jurisdiction | Allen: denial of jury trial violated Seventh Amendment and supports relief | US: Seventh Amendment does not obligate the government to pay money; jurisdictional issue for judge | Seventh Amendment does not supply a money‑mandating source; no jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159 (Fed. Cir.) (de novo review of CFC jurisdiction principles)
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir.) (Tucker Act requires separate money‑mandating source)
- Brandt v. United States, 710 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir.) (plaintiff bears burden to establish jurisdiction)
- Blazavich v. United States, 29 Fed. Cl. 371 (Fed. Cl.) (mail mishandling claims sound in tort and fall outside CFC jurisdiction)
- Terry v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 384 (Fed. Cl.) (elements required to establish a valid contract with the United States)
- Cottrell v. United States, 42 Fed. Cl. 144 (Fed. Cl.) (contract‑formation standards against the government)
- St. Bernard Parish Government v. United States, 916 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir.) (court must address subject‑matter jurisdiction and dismiss when absent)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S.) (pro se pleadings afforded leniency but still must meet jurisdictional requirements)