Leffebre v. United States
129 Fed. Cl. 48
| Fed. Cl. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Andre D. Leffebre, a federal inmate, alleges he was injured after a May 18, 2012 fight at USP Atlanta and that BOP staff failed to separate inmates and neglected medical needs.
- Leffebre sought administrative relief, including monetary damages, through the BOP appeals process; the National Inmate Appeals Administrator remanded the incident report and advised FTCA administrative procedures must be used for monetary claims.
- On May 19, 2016 Leffebre filed a pro se complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims seeking $250,000 for personal injury/negligence and moved to proceed in forma pauperis.
- The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (Tucker Act does not cover torts), argued the FTCA statute of limitations bars suit in district court, and asserted the PLRA "three strikes" rule precludes in forma pauperis status.
- The Court found Leffebre’s claim sounds in tort (not within Tucker Act jurisdiction), that he failed to show exhaustion of FTCA administrative remedies within two years and timely district-court filing within six months, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. §1631 would be futile because the claim is time-barred.
- The Court also concluded Leffebre is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g) and ordered dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and curtailed further filings without Chief Judge leave.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over alleged personal injury/negligence | Leffebre: seeks money damages for injuries caused by BOP staff | Gov't: claim is a tort and Tucker Act excludes tort claims | Court: No jurisdiction; tort claims not within Tucker Act |
| Whether case should be transferred to a U.S. District Court under 28 U.S.C. §1631 | Leffebre: requests transfer to D.C. District Court | Gov't: FTCA limitations and failure to exhaust bar suit; transfer would be futile | Court: Declined to transfer; claim time-barred and transfer not in interest of justice |
| Whether Leffebre exhausted administrative remedies required by FTCA and met its deadlines | Leffebre: used BOP appeals and sought relief (did not show FTCA exhaustion) | Gov't: record shows no timely administrative tort claim or timely district filing | Court: No evidence of required FTCA exhaustion; claim barred by 28 U.S.C. §2401(b) |
| Whether Leffebre may proceed in forma pauperis under PLRA §1915(g) | Leffebre: sought IFP status | Gov't: Leffebre has multiple prior dismissals; three-strikes applies | Court: PLRA §1915(g) applies; Leffebre barred from IFP absent imminent danger |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (Tucker Act is jurisdictional and does not create substantive money‑damages rights)
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir.) (Tucker Act requires separate substantive source for money damages)
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. United States, 655 F.2d 1047 (tort claims are outside Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- Tex. Peanut Farmers v. United States, 409 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir.) (standards for transfer under 28 U.S.C. §1631)
- Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (transfer orders reviewed for clear error; transfer only when in interest of justice)
- Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir.) (court must accept factual allegations when deciding jurisdictional motion)