Hardin v. United States
123 Fed. Cl. 667
| Fed. Cl. | 2015Background
- Pro se plaintiff Denny-Ray Hardin, a federal prisoner, sued seeking only declaratory relief that his federal trial and appellate courts are not Article III courts and that his incarceration was unlawful; he did not seek money damages.
- Hardin has filed multiple prior suits in the Court of Federal Claims that were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the court previously warned him about jurisdictional limits.
- Defendant (the United States) moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Hardin moved for default judgment and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
- The Court of Federal Claims reviewed the complaint, assumed factual allegations true for jurisdictional analysis, and considered whether the Tucker Act and other money-mandating sources authorized relief.
- The court concluded it lacks jurisdiction because Hardin seeks only declaratory relief, his asserted constitutional and statutory claims do not mandate money damages, civil‑rights and criminal‑process claims belong in other forums, and he cannot collaterally attack his conviction in this court.
- The court dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), granted Hardin IFP status (subject to the statutory installment fee procedure), and denied the default‑judgment motion as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction to hear Hardin's suit | Hardin contends the court can adjudicate the lawfulness of his conviction and issue declaratory relief that federal trial/appellate courts are not Article III courts | The United States argues the Claims Court lacks jurisdiction because Hardin seeks no money damages and raises claims not money‑mandating or cognizable in this forum | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; Claims Court cannot grant purely declaratory relief unrelated to money damages |
| Whether constitutional provisions invoked (First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Tenth, Thirteenth) or §1983/§1985 create money‑mandating claims | Hardin asserts violations of multiple constitutional rights and civil‑rights statutes | United States argues those constitutional provisions and §§1983/1985 do not mandate payment by the United States and civil‑rights claims belong in district courts | Held: These provisions are not money‑mandating for Claims Court jurisdiction; §§1983/1985 are for district courts |
| Whether the court can review criminal convictions or federal criminal statutes | Hardin effectively seeks review/collateral attack on his criminal conviction and alleges violations of federal criminal statutes | Government contends Claims Court has no jurisdiction over criminal matters or collateral attacks on convictions | Held: No jurisdiction to adjudicate criminal matters or collateral challenges to convictions in this court |
| Whether the complaint is frivolous and counts as a §1915(g) strike | Hardin contends his filings raise legitimate constitutional questions and should proceed IFP | Government notes Hardin’s prior dismissals and that he was previously warned; argues dismissal as frivolous is appropriate | Held: Complaint is frivolous under §1915A(b)(1); this constitutes at least a second strike under §1915(g); IFP granted but filing fee deferred and collected per §1915(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir.) (pro se plaintiffs must meet jurisdictional requirements)
- McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (party asserting jurisdiction must prove it by a preponderance)
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (waiver of sovereign immunity is construed strictly)
- United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1 (waiver of sovereign immunity must be unequivocal)
- Testan v. United States, 424 U.S. 392 (Tucker Act is jurisdictional and does not create substantive money‑mandating rights)
- Loveladies Harbor, Inc. v. United States, 27 F.3d 1545 (Fed. Cir.) (substantive right must be money‑mandating to confer Claims Court jurisdiction)
- Todd v. United States, 386 F.3d 1091 (Fed. Cir.) (Claims Court lacks jurisdiction absent claim for presently due money damages)
- Trafny v. United States, 503 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir.) (Eighth Amendment not money‑mandating)
- Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621 (Fed. Cir.) (Fourth Amendment does not mandate money damages)
- Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378 (Fed. Cir.) (Claims Court has no jurisdiction over federal criminal code claims or collateral attacks on convictions)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (jurisdiction is threshold and necessary to proceed)