Brown v. United States
16-1136
| Fed. Cl. | Apr 26, 2017Background
- Jeffrey Brown, pro se, was a victim of a mid-2000s fraudulent investment scheme and obtained a default civil judgment in the E.D. Va. for $10,925,000.
- Perpetrators were criminally prosecuted in D. Mass.; the criminal judgments included restitution and forfeiture orders totaling millions and a restitution award in Brown’s favor ($978,325).
- The government reports it has recovered only about $42,000 in forfeited assets to date; Brown alleges additional seized/forfeited assets exist and victims have not received restitution.
- Brown sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims seeking $30,000,000, discovery about seized/forfeited assets, FOIA-style disclosure, and injunctive relief ordering officials to disburse restitution.
- The government moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the court treated Brown’s later filing as a response and considered jurisdictional facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tucker Act jurisdiction exists for money claims based on forfeited assets/restoration | Brown contends government seized/forfeited assets and must pay victims; seeks money damages and accounting | Government argues statutes governing forfeiture vest discretionary restoration authority in Attorney General, so no money-mandating source for Tucker Act | Court: No jurisdiction — forfeiture/restoration statutes are discretionary, not money-mandating |
| Whether constitutional provisions cited create money-mandating claims | Brown invokes multiple constitutional provisions (Due Process, First, etc.) to support monetary relief | Government: Constitutional provisions do not themselves mandate payment of money under Tucker Act | Court: No — constitutional provisions cited are not money-mandating; no Tucker Act jurisdiction |
| Whether statutory causes (RICO, FOIA, §1983/§1985, APA, federal-question jurisdiction) provide jurisdiction here | Brown asserts RICO, FOIA, civil-rights and APA bases for relief and jurisdiction | Government: Many of these statutes either do not mandate money or are within exclusive district-court jurisdiction (e.g., FOIA, §1983, §1343, APA) | Court: No jurisdiction in Court of Federal Claims for these statutes; FOIA and civil-rights claims belong in district court; RICO not money-mandating |
| Whether equitable relief (orders directing prosecutors to contact victims or disburse funds) can be granted absent money judgment | Brown seeks injunctive and specific-performance relief directing officials to act regarding restitution | Government: Court of Federal Claims’ equitable powers are limited and only incidental to a money judgment | Court: No jurisdiction to grant equitable relief absent an award of monetary damages; requested equitable relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se pleadings judged by less stringent standards)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (court must dismiss when lacks subject-matter jurisdiction)
- United States v. Navajo Nation, 537 U.S. 488 (2003) (statutes with discretionary language are not money-mandating)
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (Tucker Act requires a separate money-mandating source)
- Jan's Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (Tucker Act jurisdiction requires substantive law creating right to money damages)
- Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (court accepts undisputed factual allegations when deciding jurisdictional motions)
- James v. Caldera, 159 F.3d 573 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (Court of Federal Claims’ equitable relief limited to that incidental to a money judgment)
- Testan v. United States, 424 U.S. 392 (1976) (Tucker Act does not create substantive cause of action)