Krukowski v. United States
16-1708
| Fed. Cl. | Feb 27, 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Ashton Krukowski filed four handwritten "notices" (construed as a complaint) in the Court of Federal Claims on December 27, 2016, each dated December 4, 2016.
- Krukowski had a prior complaint in the Court of Federal Claims (filed Aug. 15, 2016) that Judge Wheeler dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction; that dismissal was on appeal to the Federal Circuit.
- The December filings referenced habeas petitions (28 U.S.C. § 2241), a § 2254 removal, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and listed state and federal case numbers and additional parties.
- The United States moved to dismiss, arguing lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction (including § 1500 pending‑suit bar) and failure to state a Tucker Act claim for money damages.
- The Court held the notices did not plead any basis for Tucker Act jurisdiction (no separate source creating a right to money damages), the Court cannot grant habeas relief under §§ 2241/2254, the Court lacks jurisdiction over non‑United States defendants, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Court has Tucker Act jurisdiction | Krukowski sought transfer/relief in this court under various statutes (implying this court should hear the matter) | No Tucker Act basis: plaintiff failed to identify a separate substantive source creating a right to money damages | No Tucker Act jurisdiction; complaint fails to allege a right to money damages and is dismissed |
| Whether Court can entertain habeas petitions (28 U.S.C. § 2241 / § 2254) | Seeks writ(s) of habeas corpus / removal under § 2254 to this court | Court of Federal Claims is not authorized to grant habeas relief under §§ 2241 or 2254 | Habeas petitions are outside Court of Federal Claims' jurisdiction; dismissal warranted |
| Whether claims are barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1500 (pending suits) | Notices reference pending state and federal cases and sought removal/relief here | § 1500 prevents jurisdiction if a related suit/process was pending elsewhere; unclear overlap nonetheless bars jurisdiction if duplicative | Court could not determine any permissible claim given lack of pleaded claims; § 1500 implicated and supports dismissal for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether claims against non‑U.S. parties are cognizable here | Notices listed Nevada courts and other non‑Federal‑Claims parties | Court of Federal Claims only has jurisdiction over suits against the United States | Claims against non‑United States parties cannot be entertained and are disregarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Ledford v. United States, 297 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir.) (Court of Federal Claims cannot grant writs of habeas corpus)
- Jan's Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir.) (Tucker Act is jurisdictional waiver but does not create substantive causes of action)
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir.) (plaintiff must identify a separate source of substantive law creating a right to money damages)
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (U.S.) (Court of Federal Claims suits must be against the United States; relief against others is beyond court's jurisdiction)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S.) (pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards)
- Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159 (Fed. Cir.) (court accepts undisputed factual allegations when determining jurisdiction)