Jarvis v. United States
17-762
| Fed. Cl. | Oct 18, 2017Background
- Derek N. Jarvis, pro se, sued in the Court of Federal Claims challenging multiple decisions and procedures of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland dismissing many of his civil cases; he sought various remedies including voiding those orders and criminal investigations.
- Jarvis alleged violations of due process, equal protection, Bivens-type claims, criminal statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and judicial misconduct under 28 U.S.C. § 453.
- The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1); Jarvis moved to proceed in forma pauperis.
- The government argued (1) the Court of Federal Claims cannot review district court decisions, (2) non‑United States defendants are improper in this forum, and (3) the asserted constitutional and criminal statutes are not money‑mandating under the Tucker Act.
- The Court granted the government’s motion, dismissing for lack of jurisdiction on all claims, but granted Jarvis’s in forma pauperis request for the limited purpose of resolving jurisdictional issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims can review District Court decisions | Jarvis sought review/voiding of Maryland district court orders and alleged obstruction of justice | Government: CFC lacks jurisdiction to review actions of federal district courts | Dismissed — CFC has no jurisdiction to review district court decisions |
| Whether claims against individual judges/court personnel may proceed in CFC | Jarvis named judges and court personnel as defendants (Bivens/judicial misconduct) | Government: Only the United States is a proper defendant in CFC; Bivens and individual‑defendant claims are not cognizable here | Dismissed — claims against individuals are not within CFC jurisdiction |
| Whether alleged criminal violations can be adjudicated in CFC | Jarvis alleged violations of federal criminal statutes (e.g., §§ 241, 242) | Government: CFC lacks authority to adjudicate federal criminal claims | Dismissed — CFC cannot hear criminal law claims |
| Whether constitutional and civil‑rights claims provide Tucker Act jurisdiction | Jarvis asserted Due Process/Equal Protection and § 1983/§ 1981 claims seeking relief | Government: Constitutional clauses and § 1983 are not money‑mandating for Tucker Act jurisdiction | Dismissed — constitutional and § 1983/§ 1981 claims do not confer jurisdiction in CFC |
Key Cases Cited
- Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to review district court decisions)
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (U.S. 1976) (Tucker Act confers jurisdiction but does not create substantive money‑mandating rights)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may exercise only authorized powers)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (subject‑matter jurisdiction is a threshold question to be resolved before the merits)
- Sherwood, United States v., 312 U.S. 584 (U.S. 1941) (Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction is against the United States, not private parties)
- LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are not money‑mandating under the Tucker Act)