Kornafel v. United States, 21-1821

Background

Plaintiff Stanley Kornafel, proceeding pro se, sued the United States and a retired Pennsylvania state judge alleging constitutional, statutory, tort, and contract violations arising from an unfavorable state-court dispute over a 2015 car purchase.
Kornafel previously lost related claims in Pennsylvania state court and in multiple federal district-court actions; the complaint in this case repeats allegations of judicial bias, collusion, and deprivation of rights.
He asserted violations of the First, Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 9 U.S.C. § 10, Pennsylvania constitutional provisions, torts (fraud, conspiracy), and a breach-of-contract claim (characterizing the Constitution as a contract).
The government moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; Kornafel responded and sought to file sur-replies, which the court later denied as moot.
The Court analyzed Tucker Act jurisdictional limits (money-mandating source, claims only against the United States, and exclusion of torts/state-law claims) and whether the cited constitutional provisions or statutes invoked a money-mandating source or proper forum.
The Court granted the government’s motion, concluding it lacked jurisdiction over Kornafel’s claims and dismissed the complaint without prejudice; in forma pauperis status was granted and post-judgment motions were denied as moot.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Court of Federal Claims can hear claims against a retired state judge	Kornafel sued the judge and the U.S.; seeks damages for judicial misconduct	Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction only over claims against the United States	Dismissed: claims against the judge are outside this Court’s jurisdiction (only U.S. is proper defendant)
Whether constitutional claims (First, Fifth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth) provide a money‑mandating source	Kornafel asserts constitutional violations entitle him to money damages	The constitutional provisions do not mandate payment of money by the government	Dismissed: constitutional claims are not money‑mandating and thus do not invoke Tucker Act jurisdiction
Whether statutes cited (§ 1983 and 9 U.S.C. § 10) fall within this Court’s jurisdiction	Kornafel invoked § 1983 and FAA § 10 to get relief/damages	§ 1983 and FAA § 10 claims are within the district courts’ jurisdiction, not Court of Federal Claims	Dismissed: statutory claims must be brought in district court; Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over these statutes
Whether plaintiff sufficiently pled a contract with the United States	Kornafel alleged a breach of contract (including calling the Constitution a contract)	No well‑pleaded facts showing a contract with the U.S., nor identification of contract terms	Dismissed: contract claim is frivolous/insubstantial and lacks required contract‑pleading elements; Constitution is not a contract for these purposes

Key Cases Cited

Jan’s Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (Tucker Act requires a separate money‑mandating source for damages)
United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (U.S. 1941) (Court of Federal Claims hears only claims against the United States)
United States v. Connolly, 716 F.2d 882 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (First Amendment does not mandate payment of money)
LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Due process clauses do not by themselves provide Tucker Act jurisdiction)
Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1993) (tort claims are outside Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction)
United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (U.S. 1983) (limits on Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction and requirement of federal source)
Crewzers Fire Crew Transp., Inc. v. United States, 741 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (contract claims must plead each contract element to invoke jurisdiction)
D&N Bank v. United States, 331 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (more than speculative facts are required to prove an enforceable contract)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1972) (pro se pleadings are afforded liberal construction)
Rocovich v. United States, 933 F.2d 991 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (court may inquire into jurisdictional facts outside the pleadings)
Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (treat undisputed pleadings facts as true on jurisdictional motions)
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1978) (judicial immunity from § 1983 suits for acts within judicial capacity)