Barth v. United States
705 F. App'x 1003
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- John Barth sued the United States and numerous state and private actors alleging prolonged sleep deprivation from a neighbor’s dogs and constitutional violations (due process, equal protection, and a taking), plus claims of nuisance and assault.
- Barth sought money damages and imprisonment of individual defendants; he named federal and state judges, court employees, Florida officials, the State of Florida, private parties, and the United States.
- The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaint sua sponte for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(h)(3), concluding it lacked jurisdiction over non‑United States defendants and that Barth’s claims against the United States did not fall under the Tucker Act.
- On appeal Barth argued the Claims Court could review the alleged constitutional violations and taking arising from other federal courts’ refusals to provide relief; he invoked Boise Cascade as supportive authority.
- The Federal Circuit reviewed jurisdiction de novo and treated Barth’s uncontested factual allegations as true for the jurisdictional inquiry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Claims Court has jurisdiction over claims against non‑United States defendants | Barth sued many non‑federal entities and officials for constitutional and tort claims | The Claims Court only has jurisdiction over claims against the United States | Dismissed: Claims against non‑United States defendants are outside Claims Court jurisdiction |
| Whether the Claims Court can review actions/inactions of other federal courts | Barth contended the Court of Federal Claims can remedy due process, equal protection, and takings violations resulting from district and circuit courts’ decisions | The Claims Court cannot review or overturn decisions of Article III courts; such review is precluded | Dismissed: No jurisdiction to review merits of other federal courts’ decisions |
| Whether Barth’s claims against the United States fall under the Tucker Act | Barth argued the government’s role (via federal courts) made the claims justiciable under Tucker Act principles and Boise Cascade | The government’s only involvement was judicial (decisions refusing relief), unlike Boise where an executive agency took action against a landowner | Dismissed: Boise is distinguishable; Tucker Act jurisdiction does not extend here |
| Whether Boise Cascade controls allowing Claims Court review of a taking claim | Barth relied on Boise to claim a taking by government action | Government argued Boise involved direct agency action, not judicial rulings, so it does not apply | Held: Boise inapplicable; Claims Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Barth’s taking claim against the United States |
Key Cases Cited
- Estes Express Lines v. United States, 739 F.3d 689 (Fed. Cir.) (standard for reviewing jurisdictional dismissal)
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (1941) (Claims Court jurisdiction is limited to claims against the United States)
- Vereda, Ltda. v. United States, 271 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir.) (Claims Court cannot review actions of Article III courts)
- Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (1995) (Article III forbids Article I tribunals from reviewing Article III court decisions)
- Boise Cascade Corp. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir.) (distinguishable precedent where agency action, not judicial action, supported a takings claim)