Gloria Treviño, Individually and as Next Friend for Robert Rodriguez Treviño v. United States
113 Fed. Cl. 204
Fed. Cl.2013Background
- Plaintiff Gloria Treviño, pro se and as next friend for her brother Robert Treviño (a Texas state prisoner convicted of sexual offenses and serving life), sued alleging unlawful conviction, denial of VA benefits/medical care, conspiracy among federal and state actors, harassment, and retaliation; she sought large monetary damages and injunctive relief (including release to VA-paid medical care).
- Complaint named many non-federal-United-States defendants (State of Texas, Texas agencies, federal courts and judges, U.S. Senate committees, VA employees, private attorneys), and invoked diverse statutes (Tucker Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 38 U.S.C. provisions, FTCA, RICO, etc.).
- Plaintiff sought: (a) injunctive relief to release her brother from state prison and remand him to VA care, (b) retroactive and prospective VA disability payments for Robert and herself, (c) compensatory and punitive damages totaling hundreds of millions of dollars.
- The United States moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) (lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction) and alternatively 12(b)(6). The court considered the Tucker Act’s jurisdictional limits and whether money‑mandating statutes were identified.
- The Court of Federal Claims concluded it lacked jurisdiction over all claims and defendants named, and dismissed the complaint in its entirety for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to sue non‑United States parties in this court | Treviño sued many state/local entities, federal courts, Senate committees and individuals in this court | United States: Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction only over suits against the United States; non‑federal parties are beyond its jurisdiction | Dismissed: claims against states, localities, other federal courts/employees, and Senate/committees cannot be heard here |
| Jurisdiction over VA benefits and disability determinations | Treviño seeks VA disability ratings, retroactive payments, medical treatment decisions for her brother and herself under 38 U.S.C. provisions | United States: veterans' benefits claims are within exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (and then the Federal Circuit), not the Court of Federal Claims | Dismissed: The Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over VA benefits claims |
| Civil rights, tort, and RICO claims (§ 1983, FTCA, RICO) | Treviño alleges civil rights violations, torts, and racketeering/conspiracy supporting damages and relief | United States: § 1983 and FTCA claims belong in district court; RICO and criminal statutes are not actionable here; Tucker Act excludes claims sounding in tort | Dismissed: § 1983, FTCA, and RICO/criminal‑statute claims outside this court’s jurisdiction |
| Requests for injunctive relief and punitive damages | Treviño requests injunctions (release to VA care) and punitive damages against federal and state actors | United States: Court of Federal Claims lacks general equitable powers and cannot award punitive damages absent statutory authorization | Dismissed: injunctive relief and punitive damages not available in this court absent specific statutory grant |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (court of federal claims jurisdiction limited to suits against the United States)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (jurisdictional rules and dismissal requirement when lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (subject‑matter jurisdiction is threshold issue)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (interpretation of money‑mandating statutes for Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795 (courts may accept complaint facts as true in jurisdictional inquiry)
- Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378 (no jurisdiction to adjudicate claims under the federal criminal code or against other federal courts/employees)
- Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621 (Tucker Act does not create jurisdiction over suits against federal officials in their individual capacity)
- United States v. Tohono O’Odham Nation, 131 S. Ct. 1723 (Court of Federal Claims lacks general equitable relief power)