Bussie v. United States
2011 U.S. Claims LEXIS 9
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- Bussie, proceeding pro se, sues for unpaid psychic services rendered to presidential administrations over eight years, seeking $50,000,000.
- Defendant moves to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
- Plaintiff names the United States and individual officials as defendants; plaintiff seeks relief that would effectively compensate him for alleged services.
- Court reviews whether the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction under the Tucker Act and whether the complaint states a plausible claim.
- Court addresses multiple potential bases for relief: contract, takings, Title VII/Lilly Ledbetter, and other statutory provisions mentioned by Bussie.
- Court grants the government’s dismissal motion in part and declines to assert jurisdiction over claims against individuals or punitive damages; contract and takings claims are addressed on the merits, with mixed outcomes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over claims asserted against individuals | Bussie argues for relief against government actors; seeks compensation for alleged services. | Tucker Act jurisdiction lies with United States, not individual officers. | Claims against individuals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Punitive damages under Tucker Act | Not explicitly asserted in detail; Bussie seeks damages generally. | Court lacks authority to award punitive damages. | Punitive damages dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Lilly Ledbetter/Title VII claims under Tucker Act | Cites Ledbetter Act as basis for compensation rights. | Ledbetter/Title VII claims fall outside Tucker Act jurisdiction. | Claims predicated on Ledbetter/Title VII dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Contract claim sufficiency under Tucker Act | Alleges government contract for psychic work and compensation. | Pleading insufficient to show mutuality, offer/acceptance, or authority to bind government. | Contract claim dismissed for failure to state a plausible claim. |
| Takings claim under Fifth Amendment | Cites Russell; claims a property interest and compensation due. | No cognizable property interest or appropriation shown. | Takings claim dismissed for failure to state a claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (facts must support plausible claims, not mere allegations)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (leniency for pro se pleadings but requires jurisdictional pleading)
- Arbellaez v. United States, 94 Fed.Cl. 753 (Fed.Cir. 2010) (takings analysis and threshold property interest)
- United States v. Russell, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 623 (U.S. 1871) (precedes takings analysis cited by Bussie)
- Hwang v. United States, 94 Fed.Cl. 259 (Fed.Cl. 2010) (jurisdictional limits under Title VII-like claims)
- Searles v. United States, 88 Fed.Cl. 801 (Fed.Cl. 2009) (Title VII jurisdiction discussed)