Nickerson-Malpher v. United States, 17-612

In 2006 Maine officials seized over 600 animals statewide; plaintiff Margaret Nickerson-Malpher had 20 animals taken (19 AKC‑registered dogs) under state animal‑cruelty and civil‑forfeiture authority.
Nickerson‑Malpher alleges state court trial misconduct (fraud, perjury), and broader misconduct/conspiracy involving state officials, private organizations (e.g., AKC), and federal actors, asserting RICO, tort, and multiple constitutional violations and seeking $25 million plus fees.
She filed numerous prior federal suits challenging these events, all dismissed; the instant complaint was filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims on May 5, 2017, with an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
The Court of Federal Claims reviewed jurisdiction sua sponte and treated plaintiff’s factual allegations as true for that inquiry.
The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because (1) most defendants named were state actors/private parties (the Claims Court’s defendant must be the United States), (2) her civil‑rights, tort, and RICO claims are outside Tucker Act jurisdiction, (3) other asserted constitutional claims (outside the Takings Clause) are not money‑mandating, (4) the complaint impermissibly seeks collateral review of other courts’ decisions, and (5) most claims are time‑barred by the six‑year limitations period.
Court granted in forma pauperis but dismissed the complaint for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction and directed entry of judgment for dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper defendant in CFC	Claims arise from government action; relief sought from those officials and entities	Only the United States may be sued in the Court of Federal Claims	Dismissed as to non‑federal defendants; CFC lacks jurisdiction over state officials and private parties
Tucker Act jurisdiction over civil‑rights, tort, and RICO claims	Constitutional and statutory violations by officials and organizations entitle her to money damages in the CFC	Civil‑rights, tort, and RICO causes belong in federal district courts (or FTCA) and are not within Tucker Act grant	CFC lacks jurisdiction over those claims; they are dismissed
Money‑mandating nature of constitutional claims	First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh Amendment violations (and Due Process) support money relief	Except for a Takings Clause claim against the federal government, these amendments are not money‑mandating sources for Tucker Act jurisdiction	CFC lacks jurisdiction over those constitutional claims (except a Takings claim against U.S., which plaintiff did not properly allege)
Timeliness (28 U.S.C. § 2501)	Some alleged misconduct occurred in or before 2006; plaintiff filed in 2017	Claims accrued by 2006/2008; six‑year statute expired before 2017 filing	Claims are time‑barred under the six‑year statute and dismissal is required

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (threshold for subject‑matter jurisdiction)
United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (only the United States is proper defendant in claims against the sovereign)
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. United States, 537 U.S. 465 (waiver of sovereign immunity must be unequivocal)
Testan v. United States, 424 U.S. 392 (Tucker Act is jurisdictional; substantive money‑mandating source required)
John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (six‑year statute of limitations in the Court of Federal Claims is jurisdictional)
Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159 (pleading standards for jurisdictional factual acceptance)