Morgan v. United States
16-1510
Fed. Cl.Jun 30, 2017Background
- Plaintiff William H. Morgan, pro se, was convicted in Oregon state court (resisting arrest and contempt) and completed bench probation on October 11, 2016 according to Southern Oregon Monitoring Services (SOMS).
- On November 14, 2016 Morgan filed a wide-ranging complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims naming the United States, Oregon state courts and officials, Klamath County offices, SOMS, and others.
- Morgan alleged numerous claims including FTCA torts, constitutional violations (Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Fourteenth Amendments), Civil Rights Act and ADA claims, Lanham/Hobbs/RICO statutes, a Fifth Amendment takings claim, and breach of contract under the CDA; he also sought reconsideration of a prior dismissed CFCl case (No. 16-937).
- The Government moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); the court issued a show-cause order for failure to prosecute and gave Morgan an opportunity to respond; Morgan filed a response and additional briefing.
- The Court of Federal Claims evaluated whether the Tucker Act provided jurisdiction (i.e., whether asserted sources are money-mandating) and whether the complaint stated plausible takings/contract claims.
- Chief Judge Braden granted the Government’s motion, dismissing for lack of jurisdiction over most claims and for failure to state plausible takings and contract claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over state entities and officials | Oregon is an agent of the United States, so CFCl may hear claims | CFCl has jurisdiction only over claims against the United States, not states or private parties | Dismissed — CFCl lacks jurisdiction over state agencies and officials |
| Tort claims (negligence, IIED, fraud/conspiracy) | Alleged negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress and conspiracy | Tort claims are not within CFCl jurisdiction; FTCA not pled to create Tucker Act jurisdiction here | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — torts are outside CFCl (non-money-mandating) |
| Constitutional and statutory civil-rights claims (Fourth, Eighth, Due Process, Double Jeopardy, Civil Rights Act, ADA) | Constitutional violations and civil-rights/ADA claims entitle relief | These provisions/statutes are not money-mandating or are reserved for district courts | Dismissed — no Tucker Act jurisdiction; claims are not money-mandating and some belong in district courts |
| Lanham/Hobbs/RICO criminal/statutory claims | Alleged violations of Lanham, Hobbs, RICO statutes | Lanham vests jurisdiction in district courts; Hobbs and RICO are criminal statutes outside CFCl | Dismissed — CFCl lacks jurisdiction over these statutory claims |
| Takings and breach-of-contract claims | Alleged deprivation of property and multiple breaches of contract | Complaint fails to identify a cognizable property interest or any formed contract with the United States | Dismissed for failure to state a claim — takings and contract claims are speculative and lack required factual elements |
Key Cases Cited
- Testan v. United States, 424 U.S. 392 (Tucker Act does not create substantive rights; plaintiff must identify a money-mandating source)
- Todd v. United States, 386 F.3d 1091 (Tucker Act jurisdiction requires identification of substantive right to money damages)
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Tucker Act claims must be money-mandating)
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction confined to suits against the United States)
- Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621 (Fourth Amendment violations are not money-mandating for CFCl jurisdiction)
- Trafny v. United States, 503 F.3d 1339 (Eighth Amendment claims not within CFCl jurisdiction)
- Smith v. United States, 709 F.3d 1114 (Due Process clauses are not money-mandating under the Tucker Act)
- Adams v. United States, 391 F.3d 1212 (Takings claim requires alleging a legally cognizable property interest)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaint must state a plausible claim; labels and conclusions insufficient)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleadings reiterated)