Ballard v. United States
680 F. App'x 1007
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Mark Wayne Ballard and Monte Little Coyote, pro se, sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) after convictions and incarceration at FCI Marianna, alleging multiple constitutional, statutory, and treaty-based violations arising from their indictments, prosecutions, and imprisonment.
- Claims included violations of the Commerce Clause, Due Process, Takings Clause, Ex post Facto Clause, the Administrative Procedure Act, RICO, and the Fort Laramie Treaties (1851 and 1868); plaintiffs also alleged coercive federal funding practices affecting tribal treaty rights.
- The government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; plaintiffs amended to add wrongful imprisonment and restraint claims against federal officials relating to their criminal process.
- The COFC dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, concluding plaintiffs failed to identify any money-mandating source of law under the Tucker Act and lacked prerequisites (e.g., injury-in-fact for a takings claim; a certificate of innocence or pardon for torts arising from criminal conviction).
- Ballard appealed; the Federal Circuit reviewed jurisdiction de novo, construed pro se filings liberally but required plaintiff to establish jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether COFC has Tucker Act jurisdiction over constitutional and APA claims | Ballard argued constitutional provisions and APA violations provide relief | Gov argued those provisions are not money-mandating under the Tucker Act | Held: No jurisdiction; those provisions are not money-mandating |
| Whether Fort Laramie Treaties provide money-mandating rights | Ballard claimed treaties support monetary relief | Gov argued any treaty monetary mandates have expired or do not apply | Held: No jurisdiction; any money mandates from the treaties have long since expired |
| Whether Takings Clause claim gives rise to COFC jurisdiction | Ballard asserted a Fifth Amendment takings claim | Gov argued complaint lacked injury-in-fact and thus no standing for a takings claim | Held: No jurisdiction; complaint failed to allege injury-in-fact required for standing |
| Whether wrongful imprisonment/related tort claims arising from criminal proceedings are remediable in COFC | Ballard asserted wrongful imprisonment/restraint by federal officials during indictment/prosecution | Gov argued COFC lacks jurisdiction over such claims absent a certificate of innocence or pardon and they stem from criminal matters | Held: No jurisdiction; claims barred without certificate of innocence or pardon |
Key Cases Cited
- Banks v. United States, 741 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (standard of review for jurisdictional dismissal)
- Testan v. United States, 424 U.S. 392 (1976) (Tucker Act does not create substantive money-mandating rights)
- Todd v. United States, 386 F.3d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (requirement that source law be money-mandating)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (injury-in-fact requirement for standing)
- Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (COFC jurisdiction limits regarding claims tied to criminal convictions)
- Colbert v. United States, [citation="617 F. App'x 981"] (Fed. Cir. 2015) (pro se filings construed liberally but plaintiff still bears burden to establish jurisdiction)