Canuto v. United States
673 F. App'x 982
Fed. Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiff Teresita Canuto sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims alleging repeated break‑ins by military personnel, use of sleeping gas, and sexual assaults ordered by the Office of the President, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
- This was Canuto’s third substantially similar suit in the Court of Federal Claims; two prior complaints were dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction, and those dismissals were affirmed on appeal.
- Canuto filed the present complaint on April 1, 2016, and a motion to amend on April 15, 2016 to add additional allegations of abuse.
- The Court of Federal Claims sua sponte dismissed the complaint on May 4, 2016 for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction and denied the motion to amend as moot; Canuto appealed.
- The court below and this court analyzed whether the Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 1491) supplied jurisdiction by identifying a money‑mandating source of law; the court concluded her claims were torts or otherwise not money‑mandating.
- The Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal and denial of the motion to amend were affirmed; the amendment was deemed futile because it did not identify a money‑mandating basis for jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims has Tucker Act jurisdiction over Canuto’s claims | Canuto asserted multiple statutory and constitutional sources (Posse Comitatus, Privacy Act, FTCA, Civil Rights Act, Constitution, etc.) and even the Declaration of Independence as bases for money damages | Government argued the claims are torts or grounded in statutes that do not create money‑mandating rights enforceable in the Court of Federal Claims; FTCA and Civil Rights Act claims belong in district court | Held: No jurisdiction — claims are torts or rely on non‑money‑mandating sources; Tucker Act does not provide a substantive cause of action |
| Whether FTCA or Civil Rights Act claims can be heard in the Court of Federal Claims | Canuto invoked FTCA and Civil Rights Act as bases for damages | Government: exclusive jurisdiction over FTCA and civil‑rights damage claims lies in federal district courts, not the Court of Federal Claims | Held: Dismissal proper; those statutes’ claims are for district courts, not CFC |
| Whether the cited statutes and constitutional provisions are money‑mandating | Canuto argued various statutes and constitutional provisions require compensation for the harms alleged | Government maintained those sources either lack private causes of action or do not fairly mandate payment of money by the United States | Held: Not money‑mandating; plaintiff failed to meet burden to identify a Tucker Act‑compatible source |
| Whether denial of leave to amend was improper | Canuto sought to amend to add more incidents and allegations | Government argued amendment would be futile because it offered no new money‑mandating jurisdictional basis | Held: Denial was not an abuse of discretion; amendment would be futile and denial was properly treated as moot after dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (Tucker Act confers jurisdiction only when a separate money‑mandating source exists)
- Metz v. United States, 466 F.3d 991 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (source of law must be money‑mandating)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983) (a source must fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government)
- Sanders v. United States, 252 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (pro se litigants still bear burden of establishing CFC jurisdiction)
- United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287 (2009) (a source need not explicitly provide damages but must fairly mandate government compensation)
- Tamerlane, Ltd. v. United States, 550 F.3d 1135 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (standard for appellate review of denial of amendment)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (futility of amendment is a proper ground to deny leave to amend)