Fourstar v. United States
122 Fed. Cl. 596
Fed. Cl.2015Background
- Victor Fourstar was convicted in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana (Oct. 30, 2002) of federal offenses and sentenced to 188 months and five years' supervised release; the Ninth Circuit affirmed his conviction.
- Fourstar filed multiple post-conviction habeas petitions and petitions for certificates of innocence in various circuits, all unsuccessful.
- On January 6, 2015 Fourstar (pro se) filed a suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims seeking $675,000 for wrongful arrest and wrongful imprisonment and moved for in forma pauperis.
- The Government moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1), arguing lack of jurisdiction and that Fourstar failed to meet statutory prerequisites for 28 U.S.C. § 1495/§ 2513 relief.
- The Court considered Fourstar’s pro se status but found he failed to allege the § 2513 prerequisites (reversal, finding of not guilty, or pardon based on innocence, plus proof he did not commit the acts charged).
- The Court granted the Government’s motion, dismissed the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction, denied counsel appointment, and noted Fourstar had accumulated at least three prior frivolous-dismissal “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CFC has jurisdiction under the Tucker Act/§ 1495 for Fourstar’s wrongful-imprisonment claim | Fourstar seeks money for wrongful arrest/imprisonment based on asserted innocence | Gov't: Fourstar fails to plead a money-mandating source and lacks § 2513 statutory prerequisites for § 1495 relief | Court: No jurisdiction; dismissal under RCFC 12(b)(1) because § 2513 requirements not alleged |
| Whether Fourstar satisfied § 2513(a) prerequisites (reversal/finding of innocence/pardon and proof he did not commit charged acts) | Fourstar alleges continued assertions of innocence but not statutory proof | Gov't: Pleadings do not allege reversal, finding of not guilty, or pardon on innocence ground, nor proof he did not commit the acts | Court: § 2513(a) conditions not met; jurisdictional bar |
| Whether pro se status and liberal construction require denial of dismissal or appointment of counsel | Fourstar requested appointed counsel and favorable liberal construction | Gov't: Rules and statute control; appointment is discretionary and extraordinary circumstances not shown | Court: Liberally construed pleadings but does not excuse failure to meet statutory jurisdictional requirements; denied counsel request |
| Whether § 1915(g) “three strikes” bar applies to future filings | Fourstar has multiple prior frivolous dismissals | Gov't: § 1915(g) bars him from proceeding in forma pauperis absent imminent danger | Court: Noted at least three prior strikes; applicable § 1915(g) consequences |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (explains Tucker Act is jurisdictional and requires a money-mandating source)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (pro se complaints are construed liberally)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (pro se filings to be liberally construed in context of claims)
- Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795 (pro se liberal construction does not excuse pleading failures)
- Todd v. United States, 386 F.3d 1091 (Tucker Act jurisdiction requires identification of a substantive source for money damages)
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (source of law must be money-mandating for Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746 (plaintiff bears burden to establish jurisdiction by preponderance)
- Palmer v. United States, 168 F.3d 1310 (12(b)(1) is proper vehicle to challenge court’s jurisdiction over types of substantive claims)
- Washington v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 706 (appointment of counsel in civil cases requires extraordinary circumstances)