JOHNSON v. United States
1:22-cv-00274
Fed. Cl.Aug 28, 2023Background
- Pro se plaintiff Floyd Johnson, incarcerated in Florida, alleges childhood exposure to lead-based paint caused lifelong physical and mental injuries and repeated institutionalizations.
- Johnson sued the United States (HUD and EPA) and various paint industry defendants, claiming failures to identify/abate lead hazards, a conspiracy to conceal harms, RICO and constitutional violations, and seeking monetary damages (about $11 million).
- He invoked statutes including the APA, the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (LPPPA), TSCA, the Housing Act, and state law; he also alleged third-party beneficiary status to a HUD Annual Contributions Contract.
- The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim; the Court treated jurisdiction as threshold and considered the Tucker Act’s money-mandating requirement.
- The Court found Johnson failed to identify any money-mandating statutory or contractual source that would waive sovereign immunity; statutory and constitutional provisions he cited do not mandate money damages and tort/RICO claims are outside this Court’s jurisdiction.
- The complaint was dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction; the Court declined to transfer the case to another forum as such a transfer would be futile.
Issues
| Issue | Johnson's Argument | United States' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court has jurisdiction under the Tucker Act (money-mandating source) | Johnson relies on APA, LPPPA, TSCA, Housing Act, and other statutes to support monetary relief | No cited statute or contract fairly mandates money damages; Tucker Act requires a money-mandating source | Dismissed: Johnson failed to identify a money-mandating source; no jurisdiction |
| Whether APA supports money damages | APA authorizes relief for unlawful agency action (pleaded as basis) | APA does not mandate payment of money; it provides non-monetary relief only | Dismissed: APA is not money-mandating |
| Whether federal environmental statutes (LPPPA, TSCA, Housing Act) authorize money damages | These statutes create duties to protect against lead hazards, implying liability | Relevant provisions do not expressly or fairly mandate compensation by the United States | Dismissed: statutes are not money-mandating |
| Whether tort/personal-injury claims are within this Court | Injuries from lead exposure are alleged as negligence/ harm by government | Tucker Act does not provide jurisdiction for tort claims; FTCA governs tort claims in district courts | Dismissed: personal-injury/tort claims outside Court of Federal Claims |
| Whether RICO and constitutional due process claims can be heard here | Alleges conspiracy and due process violations caused harm and entitlement to money | RICO civil remedies and criminal enforcement lie in district courts; Due Process clauses do not mandate money damages | Dismissed: RICO and Due Process claims not money-mandating; not within this Court’s jurisdiction |
| Whether Johnson adequately pleaded third-party beneficiary contract claim | Johnson asserts he is an intended beneficiary of HUD Annual Contributions Contract | He failed to identify the contract terms or plead the requisite elements | Dismissed: conclusory allegation insufficient to establish contract-based jurisdiction |
| Whether transfer to another court is warranted | Implicitly seeks relief in another forum | Transfer allowed only if in interest of justice and claim nonfrivolous; transfer would be futile given weakness | Not transferred: Court finds transfer would be futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Court of Federal Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction)
- Rick’s Mushrooms Serv., Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (Tucker Act requires a substantive money-mandating source)
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (U.S. 1976) (Tucker Act is jurisdictional and does not create substantive cause of action)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (U.S. 1983) (plaintiff must identify law that fairly mandates compensation by the government)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (jurisdiction is a threshold issue)
- Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (standard for pleading facts on jurisdictional challenge)
- Wopsock v. Natchess, 454 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (APA is not money-mandating)
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (U.S. 1941) (Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction extends only to claims against the United States)
- Ayres v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 551 (Fed. Cl. 2005) (LPPPA, TSCA, and related statutes do not provide money-mandating causes of action)