Grant v. United States
16-1613
| Fed. Cl. | Mar 9, 2017Background
- Andre Everton Grant, pro se, sued the United States under a complaint titled "COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES UNDER THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT," alleging negligent denial of derivative citizenship, wrongful detention/removal efforts by ICE/USCIS, and related emotional distress and wrongful death of his son; he sought $10,040,029.00.
- Grant alleged USCIS denied his Certificate of Citizenship in 2011 (he claims he did not receive the denial), later reapplied, and the Board of Immigration Appeals ruled in his favor in March 2014, finding he acquired citizenship effective 2001; USCIS issued a certificate in April 2014.
- While incarcerated 2010–2013, ICE lodged and cancelled multiple immigration detainers against Grant; removal proceedings were initiated several times.
- Grant filed an administrative claim with USCIS in June 2014 seeking compensation; he received no response and sued in the Court of Federal Claims in December 2016.
- The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1), arguing the suit sounds in tort and thus is not within the Court of Federal Claims’ Tucker Act jurisdiction.
- The Court held it lacks jurisdiction over Grant’s claims, dismissed the complaint, and denied his in forma pauperis application as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over the claims (Tucker Act scope) | Grant sought money damages for USCIS/ICE misconduct and alleged constitutional violations, invoking FTCA and Tucker Act forum. | Gov't: claims sound in tort or are non-money-mandating constitutional claims; Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction. | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — Tucker Act does not cover tort claims; plaintiff failed to identify a money-mandating source. |
| Whether tort claims (negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, wrongful death) can be heard here | Seeks damages under FTCA for negligent denial and ICE detention actions. | FTCA tort claims belong exclusively in federal district courts, not the Court of Federal Claims. | Court lacks jurisdiction over tort claims; FTCA jurisdiction is in district courts. |
| Whether Fourth Amendment claim is money-mandating | Alleges Fourth Amendment violation (liberty rights) from detention and actions by USCIS/ICE. | Fourth Amendment does not mandate money damages from the United States; not a Tucker Act basis. | Fourth Amendment claim is non-money-mandating; Court lacks jurisdiction. |
| Whether in forma pauperis relief should be granted | Grant applied to proceed in forma pauperis, asserting inability to pay. | Court noted his reported income (~$42,000 gross) is substantially above poverty guidelines and questioned eligibility. | IFP application denied as moot because the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards)
- United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287 (Tucker Act requires an independent money-mandating source)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (Tucker Act jurisdiction and money-mandating requirement)
- Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200 (Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over tort claims)
- Ontario Power Generation, Inc. v. United States, 369 F.3d 1298 (types of monetary claims under Tucker Act)
- Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621 (Court of Federal Claims limited jurisdiction; Fourth Amendment non-money-mandating)