Kurt v. United States
2012 U.S. Claims LEXIS 46
Fed. Cl.2012Background
- Plaintiff Bruce Woodruff Kurt, appearing pro se, sues Missouri state officials and the United States claiming denial of his right to a jury trial and to appeal; the United States is the proper defendant in the Court of Federal Claims and the action seeks monetary relief, among other remedies.
- The 2010 Missouri municipal code charge for property damage carried up to a $500 fine and up to 90 days’ imprisonment; plaintiff sought a jury trial, which was denied by Judge Draper after a bench trial with a conviction and fine.
- Plaintiff was arrested on a warrant for the unpaid fine but was released on bail.
- Plaintiff filed his complaint in 2012 alleging federal-rights violations by state actors and the United States; he seeks a jury trial and investigations while challenging the Missouri judiciary’s actions.
- Court notes most of his claims are for equitable relief, but the court only has jurisdiction over money damages against the United States; it lacks jurisdiction over state officials, state courts, and civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Court grants in forma pauperis status and denies sealing of the complaint, then dismisses the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims against non-federal actors | Kurt contends Tucker Act jurisdiction covers his federal-rights claims | Court lacks jurisdiction over state officials and civil-rights claims; Tucker Act is only about the United States | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the Tucker Act provides money-mandating relief to plaintiff | Tucker Act enables monetary relief for constitutional violations | Tucker Act is a jurisdictional waiver, not a substantive right; not money-mandating here | No jurisdiction for monetary relief; claims fail on the merits |
| Whether due process or habeas claims are within the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction | Due process and habeas rights entitle relief | Due process claims are not money-mandating; habeas petitions not available in this court | Claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over due process/habeas issues |
| Whether the denial of a jury trial and appeal is reviewable in this court | There was a denial of jury trial and appeal rights by Missouri authorities | Such relief is not within this court's scope; state judgments cannot be reviewed here | Relief denied; court lacks jurisdiction to review state court outcomes |
| Whether the sealing request and forma pauperis status affect the court’s jurisdiction | Sealing is necessary to protect rights; pauper status allows filing without fees | Sealing denied due to lack of sensitive information; pauper status granted | Motion to seal denied; forma pauperis granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (1941) (jurisdictional limits; government sovereign immunity)
- Loveladies Harbor, Inc. v. United States, 27 F.3d 1545 (Fed.Cir.1994) (Tucker Act as jurisdictional, not substantive; money damages must be grounded in law)
- LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025 (Fed.Cir.1995) (Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment due process not money-mandating)
- Mullenberg v. United States, 857 F.2d 770 (Fed.Cir.1988) (Due process claims do not trigger Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378 (Fed.Cir.1994) (Court lacks jurisdiction over federal criminal code matters)
- Kania v. United States, 650 F.2d 264 (Ct.Cl.1981) (Criminal law enforcement responsibility not in CFC; jurisdiction limits)
- National Air Traffic Controllers Ass’n v. United States, 160 F.3d 714 (Fed.Cir.1998) (Tucker Act limits on equitable relief; needs money judgment)