Arroyo v. United States
21-818
| Fed. Cl. | Jul 2, 2021Background
- Pro se plaintiff Valerie Arroyo filed suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims seeking $5 million and impeachment remedies, alleging negligence and constitutional (due process/equal protection) violations arising from removal and handling of an underlying state-court case that proceeded in the Western District of North Carolina.
- Although the caption named the United States as sole defendant, Arroyo’s allegations principally targeted individual state and federal officials, local commissioners, the U.S. Attorney’s Office (WDNC), the FBI, the North Carolina AG’s office, and the federal district judge assigned to her removed case.
- Arroyo asserted tort and constitutional claims and referenced the Tucker Act and the FTCA; she also filed an IFP application and a motion styled as summary judgment (which primarily sought default relief).
- The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1); briefing was completed and the WDNC district court had already dismissed a closely related action by Arroyo.
- The Court of Federal Claims concluded it lacked jurisdiction over claims (1) aimed at individual officials rather than the United States, (2) sounding in tort (FTCA tort claims belong in district court), (3) based on constitutional violations that do not mandate money from the U.S., and (4) seeking review of state or federal court decisions or impeachment.
- The Court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, denied IFP as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), denied the summary-judgment motion as moot, and denied a hearing request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over claims naming the U.S. but alleging acts by individual/local/state/federal officials | Arroyo asserted the U.S. was the defendant and sought money damages based on officials' conduct | The United States argued the complaint targets individuals/other entities and does not implicate the U.S. as required under the Tucker Act | Dismissed: claims against individuals do not implicate the United States; Court lacks jurisdiction |
| Whether Arroyo's negligence/tort claims may proceed in this Court (FTCA) | Arroyo invoked negligence/FTCA in the complaint form | United States argued tort claims under FTCA must be brought in federal district court; the Court of Federal Claims lacks tort jurisdiction | Dismissed: tort claims are outside this Court’s jurisdiction |
| Whether constitutional due process/equal protection claims support Tucker Act jurisdiction (money-mandating source) | Arroyo alleged denial of due process and discrimination and sought money damages | United States argued constitutional claims here do not constitute a money-mandating source under the Tucker Act | Dismissed: constitutional claims do not mandate payment by the U.S.; no Tucker Act jurisdiction |
| Whether transfer to a district court or other relief (default/summary judgment/impeachment/IFP) was appropriate | Arroyo sought transfer/hearing/summary judgment/default and impeachment remedies | United States opposed transfer (not warranted) and defended timely filing of dismissal motion; also contended impeachment and collateral review are beyond court’s power | Transfer denied as futile; summary-judgment denied as moot; impeachment claim dismissed; IFP denied as complaint is frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976) (Tucker Act is jurisdictional and does not create substantive money claims)
- Loveladies Harbor, Inc. v. United States, 27 F.3d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (substantive source must be money-mandating for Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (1941) (the proper defendant in Tucker Act suits is the United States, not individual officers)
- McClary v. United States, 775 F.2d 280 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Tucker Act excludes tort claims)
- LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (constitutional violations that do not mandate money damages fall outside Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (courts must dismiss when they lack subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (IFP filings may be dismissed as frivolous when lacking arguable legal or factual basis)
- Perales v. United States, 133 Fed. Cl. 417 (2017) (pattern of prior frivolous filings supports dismissal under § 1915(e))