Driver v. United States
16-918
| Fed. Cl. | Dec 19, 2016Background
- Pro se plaintiff Billy Driver filed suit naming U.S. and California Attorneys General but the Court treated the United States as the proper defendant.
- Complaint sought injunctive relief and money damages for alleged civil/human rights and constitutional violations (7th, 14th Amendments, due process, equal protection), and invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the ADA; it contained no specific factual allegations.
- Defendant (United States) moved to dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1), arguing the claims are not based on money‑mandating sources and some claims are outside the Court of Federal Claims’ (CFC) jurisdiction (torts, civil rights, non‑United States defendants, injunctive relief).
- Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion to dismiss, did not pay the filing fee, and did not move for in forma pauperis status.
- The Court reviewed the complaint on the merits (despite pro se status) and found no allegation of a contract or any money‑mandating statutory or constitutional source to confer Tucker Act jurisdiction.
- The Court granted the government’s motion and dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction; Clerk ordered to close the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CFC has jurisdiction over constitutional claims (Due Process/Equal Protection/Seventh Amendment) | Driver alleges constitutional violations warrant money damages and injunctive relief | Government: Constitutional provisions invoked are not money‑mandating; thus CFC lacks Tucker Act jurisdiction | Court: Dismissed — those constitutional claims are not money‑mandating; no jurisdiction |
| Whether § 1983 civil‑rights claims may be heard in the CFC | Driver invoked § 1983 for civil rights violations | Government: § 1983 claims are within federal district courts, not the CFC | Court: Dismissed — CFC lacks jurisdiction over § 1983 claims |
| Whether ADA claims provide a money‑mandating basis for Tucker Act jurisdiction | Driver asserted ADA violations | Government: ADA is not a money‑mandating source | Court: Dismissed — ADA does not confer money‑mandating rights |
| Whether claims against non‑United‑States defendants or requests for injunctions can be heard here | Driver named state AG and sought preliminary/permanent injunctions | Government: CFC jurisdiction is limited to suits against the United States and generally to money damages (with narrow ancillary equitable relief) | Court: Dismissed — CFC lacks jurisdiction over non‑United States defendants and primarily lacks equitable jurisdiction absent an underlying money judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (Tucker Act jurisdiction requires a substantive right to money damages)
- LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025 (Fed. Cir.) (Fifth Amendment equal protection and due process are not money‑mandating)
- Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621 (Fed. Cir.) (CFC lacks jurisdiction over certain tort and constitutional claims)
- Smith v. United States, 709 F.3d 1114 (Fed. Cir.) (Due Process Clauses are not money‑mandating for Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- Aerolineas Argentinas v. United States, 77 F.3d 1564 (Fed. Cir.) (illegal exaction doctrine required when Fifth Amendment return of money is asserted)