Elleby v. United States
17-351
| Fed. Cl. | Nov 3, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Taye L. Elleby, proceeding pro se, is incarcerated following New York convictions for sex trafficking and promoting prostitution and alleges wrongful conviction and coerced witness testimony.
- Elleby sued in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims seeking to void governmental contracts/bonds and monetary damages (punitive and nominal), and challenged the Southern District of New York's dismissal of a civil suit he filed to obtain compensation for his conviction.
- The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1), arguing multiple jurisdictional defects (no money-mandating source, §1983 claim improper here, inability to review district-court proceedings, unjust-conviction statute requirements not met, no valid contract alleged).
- The Court afforded pro se leniency but noted the plaintiff still bears the burden to establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.
- The Court concluded it lacks jurisdiction over: constitutional claims that are not money-mandating; §1983 civil-rights claims; collateral review of district-court or criminal proceedings; an unjust-conviction claim under 28 U.S.C. §1495 because Elleby did not allege reversal or produce a certificate of innocence; and "sovereign citizen" style contract/bond claims lacking a valid express or implied-in-fact contract with the United States.
- The Court granted the government's motion and dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (RCFC 12(b)(1)).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court may hear constitutional claims (Sixth, Seventh, Fourteenth) seeking money damages | Elleby contends his convictions and sentencing violated constitutional rights and seeks money relief | Government: constitutional provisions asserted are not money-mandating; Tucker Act jurisdiction not established | Dismissed — constitutional claims are not money-mandating and Court lacks Tucker Act jurisdiction |
| Whether a §1983 civil-rights claim may be heard in the Court of Federal Claims | Elleby alleges a district judge violated §1983 by dismissing his civil case | Government: §1983 claims lie exclusively in district courts, not this Court | Dismissed — §1983 claims outside this Court's jurisdiction |
| Whether the Court may review decisions of the district court (challenge to SDNY dismissal) | Elleby asks Court to review the district court's dismissal of his civil action | Government: this Court cannot review district-court proceedings or decisions | Dismissed — review of district-court proceedings is barred |
| Whether an unjust-conviction claim under 28 U.S.C. §1495 is viable without reversal/certificate of innocence | Elleby asserts wrongful conviction (false arrest, coerced testimony) and seeks damages | Government: §1495 requires that conviction be reversed or set aside and a certificate of innocence; none alleged or provided | Dismissed — plaintiff did not allege reversal or supply required certificate; claim fails jurisdictionally |
| Whether claims based on alleged governmental issuance of bonds / "sovereign citizen" theories or an implied contract with the U.S. invoke Tucker Act jurisdiction | Elleby alleges government fraudulently issued bonds in his name and seeks to void obligations; asserts contract-like claims | Government: such sovereign-citizen theories are frivolous; no express or implied-in-fact contract pleaded or authority to bind the U.S. | Dismissed — sovereign-citizen claims frivolous and no valid contract pleaded; Court lacks jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (jurisdiction of federal courts limited to constitutional/statutory grant)
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (Tucker Act is jurisdictional, does not create substantive right to money)
- LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025 (due process and equal protection not money-mandating for Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378 (Court of Federal Claims may not review district court decisions on underlying proceedings)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (distinguishing contracts implied in law from those cognizable under Tucker Act)
- Jumah v. United States, 90 Fed. Cl. 603 (actual authority required to bind the United States in contract)