JARVIS v. United States, 1:21-cv-01148

Background

Plaintiff Derek N. Jarvis, proceeding pro se, sought $40 million in damages as reparations for historic slavery, mistreatment of Native Americans, and ongoing systemic racism; he alleges descent from Cherokee Freedmen.
Complaint named the United States, “United States Corporations,” and universities; Jarvis invoked constitutional guarantees, civil‑rights statutes, torts, treaties, unjust enrichment, breach of trust, and reparations theories.
Defendant moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction; Jarvis also sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
The Court reviewed whether the Court of Federal Claims (CFC) had Tucker Act jurisdiction (a money‑mandating source beyond the Tucker Act) and whether any trust‑creating statute applied.
The Court granted Jarvis’s IFP application but held it lacked jurisdiction over the various theories alleged and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
The Court warned that further jurisdictionally deficient filings could result in sanctions and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper defendant	Jarvis named the United States and various private entities/universities as defendants.	Only the United States is a proper defendant in the CFC.	Claims against non‑United States parties dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Civil‑rights / Equal protection / Due process	Jarvis invoked Civil Rights Act and constitutional guarantees as bases for money relief.	These statutes/constitutional provisions do not provide a money‑mandating source for Tucker Act jurisdiction.	Dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction.
Torts / FTCA / conversion / slander / unjust enrichment / treaty / breach‑of‑trust	Jarvis asserted torts, unjust enrichment, treaty rights, and a Native American breach‑of‑trust theory.	FTCA tort claims do not belong in the CFC; unjust enrichment and implied‑in‑law contract claims are not within Tucker Act jurisdiction; no money‑mandating treaty or trust‑creating statute identified.	All such claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (CFC lacks FTCA/tort jurisdiction; no treaty or trust statute shown).
Reparations for slavery / systemic racism	Jarvis sought monetary reparations and compared his claim to other statutory reparations programs.	No statute or money‑mandating source authorizes reparations here; reparations claims are generally nonjusticiable/political.	Dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction; no statutory authorization identified.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (establishes sovereign immunity and that CFC jurisdiction is limited to suits against the United States)
Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 (when jurisdiction ceases the court must dismiss)
United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1 (waiver of sovereign immunity must be unequivocal)
United States v. Testan, 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 (en banc) (Tucker Act requires a substantive source of law mandating money damages)
United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (trust‑creating statutes/regulations must be identified to support Indian trust claims)
United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287 (plaintiff must identify a specific trust‑creating source and whether it is money‑mandating)
Tohono O’Odham Nation v. United States, 563 U.S. 307 (CFC lacks general equitable‑relief power against the government)
Mullenberg v. United States, 857 F.2d 770 (due process and equal protection clauses are not money‑mandating for Tucker Act purposes)
Rick’s Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d 1338 (plaintiff must look beyond the Tucker Act to identify a substantive source for money damages)
In re African‑American Slave Descendants Litigation, 471 F.3d 754 (reparations claims for slavery present political‑question and justiciability concerns)
Hopi Tribe v. United States, 782 F.3d 662 (affirming lack of identified trust‑creating source; court did not reach money‑mandating question)