110 Fed. Cl. 62
Fed. Cl.2013Background
- Sellers and Nunn, acting pro se, filed a December 10, 2012 complaint in this court, labeling it a class action and alleging a future health risk from a carcinogenic prison environment.
- Plaintiffs contend that scented fabric softeners and scented detergents used in unit washers and dryers create toxic fumes dispersed throughout the FCI Low facility.
- Plaintiffs attach a Men’s Health article stating the dryer exhaust contained 25 toxic VOCs after washing with scented products.
- Nunn has a documented history of multiple prior frivolous filings; Sellers also has at least one frivolous dismissal, and both plaintiffs have filed other related actions.
- Plaintiffs seek $10 billion and assert jurisdiction under the Tucker Act and the Federal Tort Claims Act, and invoke the Eighth Amendment.
- The United States moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; plaintiffs did not respond to the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction over tort claims against the United States? | Sellers and Nunn rely on the Tucker Act and FTCA for jurisdiction. | FTCA claims fall in district courts; Tucker Act tort claims are excluded; no money-mmandating basis here. | No jurisdiction; dismissal granted. |
| Are the individual defendants (Holder, Martin, Rivera) proper subjects of a Court of Federal Claims action? | Individuals are named defendants in the complaint. | CFC lacks authority to hear non-government tort claims; jurisdiction limited to United States. | Jurisdiction lacking over individuals; claims against them are dismissed. |
| Can the Eighth Amendment support money damages in this court under the Tucker Act? | Claim involves Eighth Amendment protections. | Eighth Amendment is not money-mandating; Tucker Act requires a separate substantive source of money damages. | No jurisdiction; Eighth Amendment claim not money-mandating. |
| Should transfer to district court be ordered to cure jurisdictional defects? | Possible path to pursue the claims in another forum. | Transfer not appropriate due to lack of filing fee payment/IAp filing, bad-faith history, and lack of agency final decisions. | Not in the interest of justice to transfer. |
| Whether sanctions are warranted for the plaintiffs' conduct? | None stated in defense; not applicable. | Plaintiffs have engaged in a pattern of frivolous/bad-faith filings; sanctions appropriate. | Sanctions warranted under the court's inherent power; future unfiled submissions may be rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (threshold jurisdiction and presumption of jurisdictional defenses)
- PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (jurisdiction and preclusion principles in the Federal Circuit)
- Jan’s Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (separating Tucker Act jurisdiction from substantive money claims)
- Trafny v. United States, 503 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Eighth Amendment not money-mandating for the Court of Federal Claims)
- Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Tucker Act exclusions for tort claims against United States)
- Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1993) (limitations on jurisdictional reach under Tucker Act)
- Souders v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth., 497 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (tort claims barred from Court of Federal Claims)
- Moore v. Durango Jail, 77 Fed. Cl. 92 (Fed. Cl. 2007) (court lacks jurisdiction over tort claims)
- Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (subject matter jurisdiction standards)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (U.S. 1991) (inherent power to sanction and manage judicial process)
- PG&E v. United States, 82 F. Cl. 474 (Fed. Cl. 2008) (inherent powers vs. Rule 11 sanctions)