Mahoney v. United States
129 Fed. Cl. 589
| Fed. Cl. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Glen Edward Mahoney, proceeding pro se, sued the United States alleging federal officials used fraud and coercion at his birth to force his parents to sign a birth certificate, creating a secret government trust in his name.
- He claimed this scheme (a variant of the "redemption theory") converted his name/property into collateral for the national debt and sought $2,766,698,000 in compensation under the Fifth Amendment takings clause and vaguely under the First and Fourth Amendments.
- Mahoney previously filed an essentially identical complaint in this court (dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). The present suit repeats the same core allegations.
- The government moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); Mahoney opposed and filed supplemental materials. The court found oral argument unnecessary.
- The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaint, granting the government's motion and denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over First and Fourth Amendment claims | Mahoney alleges constitutional violations tied to birth-certificate scheme | These Amendments are not money-mandating; court lacks Tucker Act jurisdiction | Dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; First and Fourth Amendments are not money-mandating and thus not within the court's Tucker Act jurisdiction |
| Res judicata effect from prior dismissal | Mahoney reasserts same claims | Government argues prior dismissal bars relitigation of same jurisdictional defects | Dismissed: prior lack-of-jurisdiction dismissal has preclusive effect where plaintiff did not cure defects |
| Takings Clause viability | Mahoney contends government took his name/property and must pay compensation | Government argues takings claim fails because plaintiff alleges unlawful government conduct rather than conceding validity of challenged government action | Dismissed for failure to state a takings claim: allegations assert illegality (fraud, extortion, etc.), but a takings claim requires conceding validity of the government action that produced the taking |
| Pleading sufficiency | Mahoney proceeded pro se and alleged factual conspiracy; seeks relief on large monetary demand | Government moves to dismiss under Twombly/Iqbal standards and Tucker Act limits | Complaint fails to plausibly allege a money-mandating legal basis or satisfy takings-element requirements; dismissal appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (1941) (principle on suits against the United States and jurisdictional limits)
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (Tucker Act requires claims be founded on money-mandating law)
- Tabb Lakes, Ltd. v. United States, 10 F.3d 796 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (plaintiff must concede validity of government action to bring a takings claim)
- Del-Rio Drilling Programs, Inc. v. United States, 146 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (unauthorized government action does not give rise to a compensable taking)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must allege facts plausibly suggesting entitlement to relief)