24-809
Fed. Cl.Oct 15, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Henry Doiban, proceeding pro se, filed suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, citing alleged unlawful actions by United States agencies, with claims arising from four separate incidents: (1) foreclosure of his New York home, (2) loss of business licenses in Oregon, (3) arrest in Kentucky for drug possession and property seizure, and (4) seizure of money by Port of Seattle Police.
- Plaintiff's complaint referenced a range of constitutional, statutory, and regulatory provisions, and sought monetary damages for pain and suffering, loss of property, and business interests.
- The United States moved to dismiss the suit under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- Plaintiff's filings included references to various statutes, sovereign citizen theories, trusts, and a “fee schedule” seeking extraordinary damages.
- The court considered the matter on the jurisdictional question, without reaching the merits, after allowing extensive supplemental briefing and filings from the pro se plaintiff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under Tucker Act | Court has jurisdiction via various cited constitutional/statutory provisions | Plaintiff fails to cite money-mandating sources as required | No jurisdiction; no money-mandating law pled |
| Claims against State/Local Entities or Private Parties | Actions by states/local agencies are federally remediable | Court lacks jurisdiction over non-federal actors | No jurisdiction over state/local/private claims |
| Jurisdiction over Tort, Criminal, or Equitable Relief Claims | Damages and equitable relief (pain/suffering, fraud, imprisonment) are recoverable | Court lacks jurisdiction for torts, criminal law, and non-bid equitable claims | No jurisdiction for tort/criminal/equitable claims |
| Sovereign Citizen/Trust Arguments | Trust and sovereign citizen theories confer jurisdiction | Such theories are frivolous and non-justiciable | No jurisdiction; sovereign citizen claims dismissed |
| Federal Statutory Claims (e.g., Truth in Lending, § 1983) | Statutes cited provide federal jurisdiction | Statutes not money-mandating against U.S.; § 1983 only for state actors | No jurisdiction; claims not properly against U.S. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983) (Tucker Act requires a separate money-mandating source for jurisdiction)
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (1941) (Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over claims against others than the U.S.)
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976) (Tucker Act is only jurisdictional; must be coupled with a money-mandating right)
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (plaintiff must identify a substantive law entitling money damages)
- Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (no jurisdiction for tort claims or claims against federal officials)
- LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (constitutional provisions must be money-mandating to confer jurisdiction)