Blodgett v. United States
17-1148
| Fed. Cl. | Nov 30, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Ricky Joe Blodgett, a state prisoner, was convicted in Mahaska County, Iowa of first‑degree robbery and first‑degree burglary and is serving a 15‑year sentence.
- Blodgett alleges fabricated evidence, false jury instructions, malicious prosecution, falsified court records, and other misconduct by state actors and two named individuals (Blomgren and Stream).
- He seeks money damages and a jury trial in the Court of Federal Claims, invoking 28 U.S.C. §§ 1495, 2513, and 1331 as jurisdictional bases.
- The United States moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction.
- The district courts and state courts previously denied Blodgett relief; he has filed many prior federal suits and an appeal currently pending in the Eighth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over claims naming state and private defendants | Blodgett names the United States plus Iowa, Mahaska County, and two individuals; asks the court to adjudicate misconduct and award damages | The Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction only over claims against the United States, not states, counties, or private actors | Dismissed: court lacks jurisdiction over non‑federal defendants; United States must be the sole defendant |
| Whether §1495/§2513 jurisdiction for unjust conviction applies | Blodgett contends he was unjustly convicted and seeks damages under §1495 | §1495 applies only to convictions for offenses against the United States and requires reversal/pardon under §2513; Blodgett’s convictions are state offenses and not reversed/pardoned | Dismissed: §1495/§2513 do not apply because convictions were under state law and not set aside |
| Whether tort or criminal claims are cognizable here | Blodgett alleges torts (fabrication, falsification, malicious prosecution) and criminal misconduct by defendants | Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over torts (FTCA lies in district courts) and cannot adjudicate criminal matters | Dismissed: tort and criminal claims not within this court’s jurisdiction |
| Whether constitutional claims (Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Fourteenth) support money damages here | Blodgett asserts constitutional violations arising from his trial and conviction | Money damages for these constitutional claims are not recoverable in this forum absent a separate money‑mandating source of law | Dismissed: court lacks jurisdiction to award damages on these constitutional grounds |
| Whether §1500 bars this action because substantially similar claims are pending elsewhere | Blodgett’s suit repeats facts in a pending Southern District of Iowa action now on appeal to the Eighth Circuit | §1500 precludes the Court of Federal Claims from hearing claims pending in other courts that are based on substantially the same facts | Dismissed: §1500 applies because similar claims are pending in another court |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (federal sovereign is the only proper defendant in the Court of Federal Claims)
- RHI Holdings, Inc. v. United States, 142 F.3d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (Tucker Act does not create a substantive cause of action)
- Greenlee County v. United States, 487 F.3d 871 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (must identify separate source of law that creates right to money damages)
- Erikson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pleadings by pro se litigants are liberally construed)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standard)
- Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (no money damages available under certain constitutional provisions in this forum)