Khalil v. United States
133 Fed. Cl. 390
Fed. Cl.2017Background
- Plaintiff Adil Khalil filed suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims alleging deprivation of rights, violations of several federal criminal statutes, negligence (FTCA), and § 1983 claims based on alleged harassment by federal employees.
- Complaint invoked 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 245, 249, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Federal Tort Claims Act; some additional statutes listed on the cover were not argued in the body of the complaint.
- The Court of Federal Claims reviewed subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte under RCFC 12(h)(3) and the Tucker Act.
- Plaintiff also moved to proceed in forma pauperis and to transfer/consolidate a substantially identical case pending in the Eastern District of New York.
- The court found the district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions, FTCA tort claims, and § 1983 claims against federal actors, and thus concluded it lacked jurisdiction over all claims.
- The court denied in forma pauperis (plaintiff showed sufficient income/savings), denied the transfer request as moot (plaintiff already filed in district court), and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over federal criminal claims | Khalil alleges violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 245, 249 and seeks relief in this court | United States argued (and law holds) CFC has no authority to adjudicate federal criminal statutes | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; CFC cannot hear criminal-code claims |
| Jurisdiction over negligence/FTCA claim | Khalil asserts government negligence/failure to protect (invoking FTCA) | FTCA claims are exclusively for U.S. District Courts; CFC lacks tort jurisdiction under Tucker Act | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; FTCA claims belong in district court |
| Jurisdiction over § 1983/constitutional claims | Khalil seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged constitutional violations | § 1983 does not confer jurisdiction on the CFC; district courts have exclusive jurisdiction | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; § 1983 claims not cognizable in CFC |
| Motions: in forma pauperis and transfer/consolidation | Khalil sought IFP and transfer of the EDNY case to CFC for consolidation | Court evaluated affidavit (income ~$58K, $1,500 savings) and found transfer unnecessary because EDNY case exists | IFP denied; transfer/consolidation denied as moot; complaint dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Folden v. United States, 379 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir.) (subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised sua sponte)
- Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378 (Fed. Cir.) (CFC lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate federal criminal-code claims)
- Robleto v. United States, [citation="634 F. App'x 306"] (Fed. Cir.) (FTCA liability is for district courts; CFC lacks tort jurisdiction)
- U.S. Marine, Inc. v. United States, 722 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir.) (Tucker Act excludes tort claims sounding in tort from CFC jurisdiction)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 F.3d 778 (Fed. Cir.) (§ 1983 does not confer jurisdiction on the CFC)
- Brown v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 546 (Ct. Cl.) (standards for transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1631)
- Doe v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 794 (Ct. Cl.) (§ 1983 vests exclusive jurisdiction in district courts)