Granite v. United States
17-613
| Fed. Cl. | Dec 8, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Stephen Granite, pro se, sued the United States Court of Federal Claims on May 5, 2017, alleging long‑running surveillance, harassment, torture, and attempts on his life by unnamed federal agencies.
- He sought $101 million ($100 million for alleged agency actions and $1 million for pain and suffering) and asked the government to "leave [him] alone."
- The Government moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing the court lacks Tucker Act jurisdiction because the complaint alleges tortious harms and identifies no money‑mandating source.
- Plaintiff filed a pro se response asserting he deserves compensation and repeating his allegations, but did not identify any statutory, contractual, or regulatory basis for money damages.
- The court examined whether the complaint pleaded a substantive money‑mandating source and whether the allegations were non‑frivolous and sufficient to survive dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims has Tucker Act jurisdiction over the claims | Granite contends he suffered governmental surveillance/harassment warranting money damages | Government: claims are torts and no money‑mandating statute/regulation is identified | Court: No jurisdiction; claims sound in tort and identify no money‑mandating source |
| Whether the complaint pleads a money‑mandating source for damages | Plaintiff did not cite any constitutional provision, statute, contract, or regulation mandating compensation | Government: dismissal required because plaintiff failed to plead a substantive right to money damages | Court: Complaint fails to identify a money‑mandating source; dismissal on jurisdictional grounds affirmed |
| Whether the complaint states a plausible claim (RCFC 12(b)(6)) | Plaintiff insists the harms are real and continuing and he deserves relief | Government: allegations are speculative, fanciful, and legally insufficient; may be factually frivolous | Court: Allegations are conclusory and do not state a cognizable claim; dismissal appropriate |
| Relief: disposition of the case | Plaintiff sought $101 million and injunctive relief that government stop conduct | Government sought judgment dismissing the complaint | Court: Granted the Government’s motion to dismiss; Clerk to enter judgment for the Government |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (Tucker Act is jurisdictional; does not by itself create substantive right to money damages)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (source of substantive law must fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation)
- Todd v. United States, 386 F.3d 1091 (Fed. Cir.) (Tucker Act jurisdiction requires identification of independent substantive right to money damages)
- Jan's Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. FAA, 525 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir.) (plaintiff must plausibly belong to class entitled to recover under money‑mandating source)
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (factual allegations that are fanciful or delusional may be dismissed as frivolous)
- Cottrell v. United States, 42 Fed. Cl. 144 (Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over tort claims against the United States)