Houston v. United States
132 Fed. Cl. 339
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- Sam Houston, a pro se plaintiff and HUD-VASH participant, sued the United States seeking money damages and injunctive relief relating to problems with an apartment lease provided through the HUD‑VA Supportive Housing (HUD‑VASH) program and a prior 2014 foreclosure.
- HUD‑VASH referrals: VA referred Houston to the local Public Housing Authority (HACA); the lease was between Houston and a private landlord, with the PHA making subsidy payments to the landlord.
- Houston alleges VA/local VA officials caused lease-related harms (eviction, emotional distress), challenges the use of his VA disability payments to pay rent under 38 U.S.C. § 5301, and amended to add a claim that Fannie Mae “condoned” an illegal foreclosure by Bank of America constituting a taking.
- Procedural history: Houston previously litigated related state and federal cases (eviction and separate suit) that were dismissed or remanded; he filed this action in the Court of Federal Claims. Defendant moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
- The court concluded it lacks Tucker Act jurisdiction because Houston failed to identify a contract with the United States or any money‑mandating statutory source; tort claims and claims against private actors (bank) are outside the court’s jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court has Tucker Act jurisdiction over the HUD‑VASH lease dispute | Houston contends VA/HUD involvement makes the United States responsible for lease harms | United States argues lease was between Houston and a private landlord/PHA and no contract with the U.S. exists | No jurisdiction — plaintiff failed to allege a contract with the U.S. or money‑mandating source |
| Whether court may hear tort claims (fraud, emotional distress) against the U.S. | Houston seeks damages for emotional distress and fraud tied to VA actions | Defendant asserts tort claims are excluded from the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction | Dismissed — tort claims not cognizable under Tucker Act |
| Whether 38 U.S.C. § 5301 (use of disability payments) provides a money‑mandating basis for relief | Houston argues § 5301 prohibits use of VA disability payments to pay rent and supports relief | United States contends § 5301 does not mandate payment of money and thus is not a Tucker Act jurisdictional basis | No jurisdiction — statute not money‑mandating; cannot support damages or injunctive relief here |
| Whether foreclosure by Bank of America (allegedly condoned by Fannie Mae) is a Fifth Amendment taking giving rise to jurisdiction | Houston alleges Fannie Mae condoned illegal foreclosure amounting to a taking for public use | Defendant notes foreclosure was by a private bank and plaintiff alleges no public use or governmental taking | Dismissed — no governmental taking alleged; no jurisdiction and failure to state a taking claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (2005) (Tucker Act requires separate source of substantive law creating right to money damages)
- RHI Holdings, Inc. v. United States, 142 F.3d 1459 (1998) (Tucker Act does not itself create a cause of action)
- Greenlee County v. United States, 487 F.3d 871 (2007) (need for separate money‑mandating source to invoke Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction)
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (1941) (limits on Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction)
- Shearin v. United States, 992 F.2d 1195 (1993) (torts excluded from Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard requiring factual plausibility)