Bobka v. United States
133 Fed. Cl. 405
Fed. Cl.2017Background
- Plaintiff Richard J. Bobka pleaded guilty in the Middle District of Florida (a "straight up plea") in 2012 for participation in a mortgage-fraud conspiracy and was sentenced to 180 months and about $22.8 million restitution. He did not appeal.
- Bobka filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims (CFC) in 2017 seeking damages (~$47 million), vacatur of his conviction, immediate release, and other relief, alleging the government forced him into contracts used to convict him and violated numerous constitutional provisions, statutes, rules, and committed torts.
- He invoked multiple theories: unjust conviction/false imprisonment under 28 U.S.C. § 1495, express/implicit/adhesion contract claims with the government, constitutional violations, statutory and rule-based claims (including criminal statutes, Civil Rights Act provisions, Rehabilitation Act, and judicial oath statute), and tort claims (fraud, negligence, defamation).
- The government moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
- The CFC analyzed jurisdictional limits of the Tucker Act, statutory requirements for § 1495 claims (28 U.S.C. § 2513), the requirement that constitutional and many statutory claims be money-mandating to fall within CFC jurisdiction, and applicable limitations like 28 U.S.C. § 2501.
- The court granted the government’s motion and dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, explaining that Bobka had not met the strict requirements for an unjust-conviction claim, failed to identify any money-mandating source for constitutional/statutory claims, and asserted contract and tort theories outside the CFC’s jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1495 (unjust conviction) | Bobka seeks damages for unjust conviction and imprisonment under § 1495, claiming contracts used to convict him were void. | Government: § 1495 requires a certificate/finding of innocence or pardon under § 2513; Bobka has none. | Dismissed — Bobka failed to satisfy § 2513 requirements; claim not viable. |
| Contract claims (express, implied, adhesion, constructive trust) | Bobka asserts he entered contracts with the government and was bound by government terms; seeks monetary relief for breaches. | Government: Plea and criminal-case-related agreements do not clearly and unmistakably waive sovereign immunity or create money-mandating obligations under Tucker Act. | Dismissed for lack of Tucker Act jurisdiction; alleged contracts do not create monetary liability. |
| Constitutional claims (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Eleventh, Fourteenth) | Bobka alleges multiple constitutional violations arising from prosecution and conviction. | Government: These constitutional provisions are not money-mandating; CFC lacks jurisdiction over stand-alone constitutional claims for money damages. | Dismissed — constitutional claims not within CFC jurisdiction. |
| Statutory, rule-based, and tort claims (criminal statutes, §§ 1985-86, Rehabilitation Act, Federal Rules, FTCA torts) | Bobka alleges violations of various criminal statutes, Civil Rights Act, Rehabilitation Act, rules, and torts. | Government: Criminal statutes not adjudicable here; Civil Rights and Rehabilitation Act belong in district court; FTCA torts belong in district court; procedural rules are not money-mandating. | Dismissed — none provide a money-mandating basis or fall within CFC jurisdiction; tort/FTCA claims belong in district court. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cavallo, 790 F.3d 1202 (11th Cir. 2015) (background on the underlying conspiracy and related appeals)
- Engage Learning, Inc. v. Salazar, 660 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (distinguishing jurisdictional defects from elements-of-the-claim failures)
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (requirement to identify a separate source of substantive law that mandates money damages)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983) (Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity but does not create substantive rights)
- Testan v. United States, 424 U.S. 392 (1976) (Tucker Act principles; need for separate money-mandating source)
- Higbie v. United States, 778 F.3d 990 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (criminal-case agreements ordinarily do not clearly and unmistakably subject the government to monetary liability)
- Sanders v. United States, 252 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (damages remedy not ordinarily available for agreements concerned solely with criminal-case conduct)
- Rick's Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (CFC lacks jurisdiction over tort claims against the United States)
- John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (2008) (statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2501 is jurisdictional and cannot be equitably tolled)