Burciaga v. United States
16-1257
| Fed. Cl. | Jan 26, 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Manuel Burciaga is incarcerated in Fresno County Jail and was charged in California state court on June 15, 2016 with multiple criminal counts.
- Burciaga claims he formed a contract with the State by signing and returning a copy of the criminal complaint, sending a "Notice of Acceptance" (Aug. 16, 2016) and a "Notice of Dishonor" (Aug. 30, 2016).
- He alleges continued imprisonment breached that purported contract and seeks immediate release and $5,000,000 in damages.
- The United States (defendant here) moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1), arguing the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because the suit is against the State of California and the claims are not within the Tucker Act.
- The Court granted the Government's motion, holding it lacks jurisdiction over claims against California and lacks Tucker Act jurisdiction for the alleged contract, tort, or statutory bases asserted by Burciaga.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court has jurisdiction over a suit naming the People of the State of California | Burciaga sued the People of California for breach of a contract he alleges he formed with the State | Government: Court under Tucker Act has jurisdiction only over the United States, not states | Held: No jurisdiction — suit against California is outside this Court's jurisdiction |
| Whether a contract with the United States exists based on signing/returning the criminal complaint and Notices | Burciaga contends his signed complaint and Notices created a binding contract entitling him to relief | Government: No contract with the United States; documents do not show contract formation or entitlement to money from the U.S. | Held: No Tucker Act contract jurisdiction; no alleged contract with the United States |
| Whether claims for unlawful imprisonment or similar relief fall within the Tucker Act | Burciaga seeks damages for "unlawful detainment" and release | Government: Unlawful imprisonment claims sound in tort and are excluded from Tucker Act jurisdiction | Held: Dismissed — tort/unlawful imprisonment claims are not within Court's Tucker Act jurisdiction |
| Whether cited statutes provide a money-mandating basis against the United States | Burciaga cites various statutes and resolutions (e.g., House Joint Resolution 192, UCC 3-419, Pub. L. 73-10) as bases for relief | Government: Those authorities do not mandate payment by the United States and thus do not confer Tucker Act jurisdiction | Held: Dismissed — cited statutes do not create money-mandating claims against the U.S. |
Key Cases Cited
- RHI Holdings, Inc. v. United States, 142 F.3d 1459 (Fed. Cir.) (Tucker Act does not itself create substantive cause of action)
- Greenlee County v. United States, 487 F.3d 871 (Fed. Cir.) (separate source of substantive law required for Tucker Act damages)
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir.) (same — need money-mandating source)
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (U.S.) (Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction limited to claims against the United States)
- Erikson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (U.S.) (pro se pleadings are liberally construed but still must allege jurisdictional facts)
- Ransom v. United States, 900 F.2d 242 (Fed. Cir.) (contract claim under Tucker Act requires contract with the United States)
- Worthington v. United States, 168 F.3d 24 (Fed. Cir.) (statute must be money-mandating to confer Tucker Act jurisdiction)