Haddad v. United States
15-1075
| Fed. Cl. | Sep 30, 2016Background
- Pro se plaintiff Ron Haddad, Jr., serving a 150-month federal sentence, sued over an Executive Committee order from the N.D. Ill. court restricting his ability to file new pro se civil cases and alleged misconduct by a district-court clerk and court reporter.
- Haddad asserted numerous constitutional provisions (including impeachment/removal, habeas suspension, Supremacy Clause, and various amendments) and cited the APA as bases for jurisdiction, and sought injunctions, firing of officials, $20 million, and trial transcripts.
- The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
- Haddad argued this Court (an Article I court) could hear constitutional claims, challenges to his conviction, APA-based claims, and unjust-conviction claims.
- The Court denied the government’s late reply as untimely (but noted replies are optional), and evaluated jurisdiction under the Tucker Act and related precedent.
- The Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because none of the cited constitutional provisions or the APA are money‑mandating, the Court cannot review district‑court case‑management orders or collateral attacks on convictions, and tort/criminal claims are outside the Tucker Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over Haddad's constitutional and APA claims | Haddad: constitutional provisions and the Supremacy Clause (and APA procedures) permit this Court to hear his claims; as an Article I court it can enforce Article I rights and review his criminal conviction | Gov't: No money‑mandating statute; APA review is unavailable in this court; claims pertain to district‑court case management and collateral attack on conviction | Dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction — no money‑mandating source; APA review unavailable; collateral attack disallowed |
| Whether Fourteenth/Fifth Amendment due‑process claims give rise to Tucker Act jurisdiction | Haddad: alleged due‑process violations related to his prosecution and treatment | Gov't: Due‑process clauses are not money‑mandating; Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to federal actors | Held: Due‑process clauses are not money‑mandating; cannot supply Tucker Act jurisdiction |
| Whether unjust‑conviction/imprisonment statute (28 U.S.C. § 1495) supports jurisdiction | Haddad: seeks relief tied to wrongful conviction/imprisonment | Gov't: Haddad’s conviction has not been reversed, set aside, or pardoned as required by § 1495/§ 2513 | Held: § 1495 inapplicable because conviction remains intact |
| Whether tort claims (conversion/fraud against court employees) are within Tucker Act jurisdiction | Haddad: alleges clerk stole $50 and reporter attempted to defraud him of transcript fees | Gov't: Fraud and conversion sound in tort and are excluded from Tucker Act jurisdiction | Held: Tort claims dismissed — Tucker Act excludes "sounding in tort" claims |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (Tucker Act requires money‑mandating source)
- Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295 (en banc) (Court of Federal Claims lacks APA jurisdiction)
- Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378 (Court of Federal Claims may not review district‑court decisions)
- Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (pleading‑stage standard for accepting allegations as true)
- Pixton v. B&B Plastics, Inc., 291 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. pleading/jurisdiction standard)
- Smith v. United States, 709 F.3d 1114 (Due‑process clauses not money‑mandating)
- Eastport Steamship Corp. v. United States, 372 F.2d 1002 (Court of Federal Claims limited to money‑mandating claims)
- Grayson v. United States, 141 Ct. Cl. 866 (requirements for unjust‑conviction claims under § 1495)