Jefferson v. United States
104 Fed. Cl. 81
| Fed. Cl. | 2012Background
- Elmer Lee Jefferson, a pro se prisoner, filed a claim in this court alleging conspiracy by United States officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).
- The complaint in this court is a one-paragraph joinder of actions and attaches an earlier district court complaint and various unrelated documents.
- The attached materials purport to challenge state and local police actions, not acts of the United States, and contain confusing, non-specific assertions.
- Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing no money-mandating basis, no review of other courts’ decisions, no claims against states or localities, and no punitive damages.
- The court held that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act to hear these claims, and that Plaintiff’s filing should be dismissed; Plaintiff has extensive prior strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
- The court noted appointment of counsel is not warranted and that the three-strikes rule applies to bar further in forma pauperis filings in this court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act | Jefferson contends the United States is responsible for conspiracy | Defendant asserts no money-mandating basis and no jurisdiction | No jurisdiction; Tucker Act lacking money-mandating basis |
| Whether the complaint states a money damages claim against the United States | Jefferson asserts constitutional/constitutional-like relief | No money damages source independently mandating payment | Not money-mandating; dismissal warranted |
| Whether the action improperly targets state/local authorities rather than the United States | Claims implicate county police actions | Claims exceed federal defendant; states/localities not proper defendants | Court lacks jurisdiction over state/local actors; improper defendant |
| Whether the three-strikes rule bars in forma pauperis relief and requires filing fee | Jefferson seeks in forma pauperis status | Three-strikes rule applies; no IFP | Three-strikes rule bars substantial filings; dismissal without merit |
| Whether Civil Rights Act claims fall within this court’s jurisdiction | Civ. rights claims against government actors | Civil rights claims fall outside Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction | No jurisdiction for § 1983/1985/1988 claims in this court |
Key Cases Cited
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2006) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be forfeited; sua sponte review possible)
- United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287 (U.S. 2009) ( Tucker Act waives immunity for money-manding sources distinct from Tucker Act)
- Ontario Power Generation, Inc. v. United States, 369 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (identifies three money-mandating monetary claim types under the Tucker Act)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must have factual augmentation, not bare conclusions)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleadings must contain more than mere conclusions to state a claim)
- Greenlee County, Ariz. v. United States, 487 F.3d 871 (Fed.Cir. 2007) (circuit on money-mandating and jurisdictional analysis)