Godfrey v. United States
131 Fed. Cl. 111
Fed. Cl.2017Background
- Plaintiff Sylvan Godfrey, a Sioux tribe member incarcerated at FCI Marianna, sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims alleging multiple wrongs including wrongful conviction, unlawful civil commitment, takings (roads/right-of-way and escheatment), intentional poisoning of reservation water, and underpayment under the Cobell Historical Accounting class settlement.
- Godfrey alleges he received $880 but was entitled to $1,000 under the December 2009 Cobell Settlement Agreement for Historical Accounting class members.
- The Government moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) arguing lack of jurisdiction, lack of standing, non–money-mandating constitutional claims, tort bar to CFC jurisdiction, failure to exhaust treaty/administrative remedies, and that many claims were not within the class of persons entitled to relief under money‑mandating sources.
- Godfrey sought leave to amend and requested a third‑party representative; the Government opposed amendment and the court considered Godfrey’s pro se status but noted he failed to timely oppose the motion to dismiss.
- The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and/or failure to state a claim all counts except the Cobell underpayment claim, and denied leave to amend and the request to appoint a third‑party representative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction for wrongful conviction damages under 28 U.S.C. §1495/§2513 | Godfrey seeks money damages for unjust conviction and imprisonment | Gov’t: §1495/§2513 requires reversal, set‑aside, or pardon showing; Godfrey alleges none | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (no required certificate/pardon) |
| Treaty (“Bad Men” clause) claim for wrongful imprisonment | Godfrey alleges Fort Laramie Treaty violation | Gov’t: treaty claims require exhaustion/administrative proof to Interior | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (no exhaustion alleged) |
| Constitutional claims for civil commitment and other constitutional violations | Godfrey alleges violations of Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Fourteenth Amendments | Gov’t: those provisions are not money‑mandating for Tucker Act jurisdiction | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (constitutional provisions not money‑mandating) |
| Takings/land claims (escheatment, unfair purchase price, roads/ROW) | Godfrey alleges loss of land use, escheatment, roads built without compensation | Gov’t: plaintiff fails to allege a personal, valid property interest and thus lacks standing and is not within class entitled to compensation | Dismissed for lack of standing/property interest; no Tucker Act jurisdiction for these facts |
| Tort claim for intentional poisoning of reservation water | Godfrey alleges intentional poisoning and false reporting | Gov’t: CFC lacks jurisdiction over tort claims; toxic‑exposure claims are torts | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (tort claim outside CFC jurisdiction) |
| Breach of Cobell Settlement Agreement (underpayment) | Godfrey alleges he is a Historical Accounting class member entitled to $1,000 but received $880 | Gov’t: contends plaintiff identifies no basis for more than $880 | Held: Claim survives — settlement is a contract that contemplates money damages; CFC has jurisdiction over alleged underpayment |
Key Cases Cited
- Cobell v. Jewell, 802 F.3d 12 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (history and terms of the Cobell settlement)
- Testan v. United States, 424 U.S. 392 (U.S. 1976) (Tucker Act is jurisdictional and requires an independent money‑mandating source)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must raise claim above speculative level)
- Jan’s Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. F.A.A., 525 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (money‑mandating requirement and class membership for Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1993) (tort claims outside CFC jurisdiction)
- Holmes v. United States, 657 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (settlement agreements treated as contracts for Tucker Act purposes)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1972) (pro se pleadings afforded liberal construction)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires concrete, particularized injury)
- Wyatt v. United States, 271 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (only persons with valid property interests at time of taking may recover)