Garner v. United States
17-976
| Fed. Cl. | Jul 28, 2017Background
- Kenneth Garner, a pro se prisoner at Fairton Correctional Institution, filed a complaint dated July 19, 2017, alleging prison staff placed a dangerous inmate in his solitary cell without a search and that the inmate injured him.
- Garner asserted negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against the United States.
- The Court of Federal Claims reviewed the complaint sua sponte for subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court explained it has jurisdiction under the Tucker Act only for claims based on a contract with the United States or a statute/constitutional provision that mandates payment of money.
- Negligence and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims are torts, typically pursued under the Federal Tort Claims Act in district court, not in the Court of Federal Claims.
- The court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction under RCFC 12(h)(3), closed the case, and waived the filing fee given Garner’s pro se status and confusion about jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over Garner's claims | Garner alleged negligent placement of a dangerous inmate causing injury and sought relief | United States argued jurisdiction is lacking because claims sound in tort and not based on a contract or money-mandating statute | Dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(h)(3) |
| Whether claims alleging negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress can proceed in this court | Garner treated his harms as actionable against the federal government in this court | Government implicitly asserted such claims belong in district court under the FTCA | Court held these are tort claims outside Tucker Act jurisdiction and belong in district court |
| Whether the court should transfer the case to district court | Garner did not request transfer; no filing fee paid | Government did not seek transfer; court considered factors (fee, pro se status) | Court declined to transfer and dismissed instead; waived filing fee |
| Whether sua sponte jurisdictional dismissal is appropriate | Garner’s complaint did not plead a money-mandating statute or contract | N/A (court reviews jurisdiction sua sponte) | Sua sponte dismissal appropriate; allegations taken as true for jurisdictional determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Total Med. Mgmt., Inc. v. United States, 104 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (plaintiff must plead elements of a valid contract to establish Tucker Act contract jurisdiction)
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976) (Tucker Act jurisdiction exists only when a statute confers a substantive right to recover money damages)
- Contreras v. United States, 64 Fed. Cl. 583 (2005) (court’s jurisdiction requires a law/regulation that mandates payment or creates a money-remedy duty on the government)
- Folden v. United States, 379 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (jurisdictional challenges may be raised any time; allegations taken as true on the face of the pleadings)
- Rich’s Mushroom Servs., Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (Tucker Act does not cover tort claims)
- O’Connor v. United States, 355 Fed. Appx. 412 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (negligence is a tort outside Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction)
- McKenzie v. United States, 524 Fed. Appx. 636 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (intentional infliction of emotional distress is a tort that falls outside this court’s jurisdiction)
- United States v. Muniz, 374 U.S. 150 (1963) (FTCA and district court are the proper forum for many tort claims against the United States)