Herbert v. United States
16-237
| Fed. Cl. | Jul 29, 2016Background
- Pro se plaintiff Susan Herbert filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims on behalf of herself and 66 others seeking non-monetary relief (injunctions, declarations, a hearing) and alleging constitutional violations and treason by a private individual.
- Herbert previously filed nearly identical suits in multiple forums; the Court of Federal Claims dismissed a 2014 action raising similar claims.
- Herbert bases jurisdiction on the Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 1491) but expressly disavows monetary damages in the current complaint.
- The government moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; Herbert opposed and also sought in forma pauperis status.
- The court concluded it lacks Tucker Act jurisdiction because Herbert seeks non-monetary relief and did not point to a money-mandating source; many claims are also barred by res judicata.
- Court dismissed the complaint, denied the in forma pauperis motion as moot, and barred future filings by Herbert without Chief Judge approval.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court's subject-matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act | Tucker Act provides jurisdiction for constitutional claims against the U.S. | Tucker Act requires a separate money‑mandating source; Herbert seeks no monetary relief | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction—no money‑mandating source; Tucker Act alone insufficient |
| Due Process and Equal Protection claims | Herbert alleges violations and seeks non‑monetary relief (injunctions, hearings) | These constitutional provisions are not money‑mandating | Dismissed—Due Process/Equal Protection do not confer Tucker Act jurisdiction |
| Takings claim | Alleged taking based on denial of entry/hearing in Supreme Court | Right of entry/hearing is not private property; claimant must concede govt action to pursue a taking under Tucker Act | Dismissed—no private property taken and legal prerequisites for a takings claim unmet |
| Injunctive/criminal relief & claims against individuals | Requests injunctions (stop tax collection, bar President from acting) and alleges treason against private individual | Court of Federal Claims cannot grant equitable relief in these circumstances and lacks criminal jurisdiction or power over individual defendants | Dismissed—court lacks authority to grant requested equitable or criminal relief; claims against individuals not cognizable here |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (Tucker Act requires an independent money‑mandating source for monetary relief)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (pro se pleadings are construed liberally but plaintiffs bear burden to establish jurisdiction)
- James v. Caldera, 159 F.3d 573 (Due Process Clause is not money‑mandating for Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- Tabb Lakes, Ltd. v. United States, 10 F.3d 796 (claimant must concede validity of government action to bring certain takings claims)
- Ramirez v. United States, [citation="239 F. App'x 581"] (Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to grant broad equitable relief sought in virtually identical claims)