In Re: Michael A. Henry Bey
2019-115
Fed. Cir.Apr 18, 2019Background
- Michael A. Henry Bey sued multiple parties in the Southern District of Florida over the foreclosure, sale, and his ejection from property he formerly owned.
- The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction, finding Henry Bey’s invocations of the FTC Act, various federal banking statutes, and “land patent” theories insufficient to create federal-question jurisdiction and that diversity jurisdiction was absent.
- Henry Bey sought district-court rulings on motions for summary judgment, judgment on the pleadings, and reconsideration; the district court denied reconsideration and reiterated its lack of jurisdiction to decide the merits.
- Henry Bey petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to rule in his favor, to rule on pending motions, and to vacate the dismissal.
- The Federal Circuit previously dismissed a related appeal for lack of jurisdiction and again addressed whether it has authority to grant mandamus in this matter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Federal Circuit has subject-matter jurisdiction over Henry Bey’s challenge to foreclosure and ejection | Henry Bey contends federal statutes, FTC Act, banking statutes, and a recorded “land patent” create a federal question | Respondents argue claims arise under state law (foreclosure/trespass) and no diversity exists | Court held it lacks jurisdiction; Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction is limited and does not extend to land patents or non-patent federal questions |
| Whether land patents confer Federal Circuit jurisdiction | Henry Bey asserts his recorded land patent makes the dispute federal | Respondents say land-patent theory does not invoke patent-law jurisdiction | Court held Federal Circuit’s patent jurisdiction covers only patents for inventions, not land patents |
| Whether the complaint states a Little Tucker Act takings claim against the United States | Henry Bey implies his ejection was a taking warranting federal relief | Respondents note Henry Bey is not suing the United States for money damages for a taking | Court held the complaint does not state a non-frivolous Little Tucker Act claim |
| Whether mandamus relief or transfer to a regional circuit is appropriate | Henry Bey requests mandamus to vacate dismissal and force merits rulings | Respondents contend the district court correctly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and denied reconsideration | Court dismissed the mandamus petition and declined to transfer the matter to a regional circuit as not clearly in the interest of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker Perkins, Inc. v. Werner & Pfleiderer Corp., 710 F.2d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (All Writs Act does not provide independent jurisdiction; mandamus requires the action to fall within the court’s statutory jurisdiction)
- Ealey v. Wash. Mut. Bank, [citation="71 F. App'x 825"] (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Federal Circuit’s patent jurisdiction does not extend to claims based on land patents)