Bussie v. United States
443 F. App'x 542
Fed. Cir.2011Background
- Bussie, pro se, sued the United States Court of Federal Claims seeking $50 million for alleged psychic work performed for the federal government.
- Plaintiff named public figures (Obama, Bush, Palin) as defendants and claimed government pursuit of high-value targets including 9/11 masterminds.
- The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaint, citing lack of jurisdiction under the Tucker Act to sue individuals.
- The Tucker Act provides jurisdiction against the United States, not individual officials; thus claims against officials were improper.
- Even if construed as a claim against the United States, Bussie failed to plead a valid breach of an implied-in-fact contract with sufficient factual support.
- Bussie also asserted a Fifth Amendment takings claim, which the court dismissed for lack of a cognizable property interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tucker Act jurisdiction over individuals | Bussie asserts damages from government officials for psychic work. | Tucker Act covers suits against the United States, not against individuals. | No jurisdiction over individuals; dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether Bussie pleaded a valid implied-in-fact contract | Government owes $50 million for psychic work. | Complaint lacks factual support for an implied contract claim. | Dismissal affirmed for failure to state a claim. |
| viability of a takings claim | There was a government takings of his property interest. | No cognizable property interest identified. | Takings claim properly dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Tucker Act jurisdiction over suits against the United States)
- Barrett Ref. Corp. v. United States, 242 F.3d 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (implied-in-fact contract limitations in CFC jurisdiction)
- Cary v. United States, 552 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (pleading standards for stating a claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (conclusory allegations insufficient to plead a claim)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (fact pleading required; conclusory statements insufficient)
- American Pelagic Fishing Co. v. United States, 379 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (property interest requirement for takings claim)