Phillips v. United States, 17-968

Background

Pro se plaintiff Wendell W. Phillips sued the United States, the State of Michigan, several federal and state judges, and other officials, seeking large monetary awards and injunctive relief arising from four prior district/state-court cases he lost.
The prior suits involved employment discrimination and breach-of-contract/ invention disputes; several were dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or as time-barred.
Phillips alleged constitutional violations (Fourth, Fifth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth Amendments), Civil Rights Act claims (42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988), Sherman Act claims (15 U.S.C. §§ 1–7), fraud, conspiracy, and document falsification.
The United States moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; Phillips moved for default judgment under RCFC 55.
The government argued the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to review state and federal court decisions, to hear claims against non‑United States parties, to entertain § 1983/Sherman Act/APA claims, to adjudicate non‑money‑mandating constitutional claims, and to hear tort claims.
The court granted the government's motion, dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, and denied Phillips's motion for default judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court of Federal Claims may review and redress alleged errors by state and federal trial courts	Phillips contended his claims attack official actions and sought money damages and enforcement of judgments stemming from those courts	Gov't argued the CFC cannot review decisions of district or state courts; those fora are exclusive for such relief	Held: CFC lacks jurisdiction to review state or federal court decisions; claims dismissed
Whether claims against named judges, state, and private parties are cognizable in CFC	Phillips asserted defendants acted in official capacities and relied on FTCA/DOJ representation rules	Gov't argued only the United States is a proper defendant in CFC; FTCA claims belong in federal district courts	Held: Claims against parties other than the United States dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether CFC can entertain Civil Rights Act (§§ 1983/1988) and Sherman Act claims	Phillips sought relief under §§ 1983/1988 and Sherman Act	Gov't argued jurisdiction over those statutes is vested in federal district courts	Held: Those statutory claims are not within CFC jurisdiction and were dismissed
Whether plaintiff's constitutional and tort claims support CFC jurisdiction (money‑mandating source)	Phillips invoked multiple constitutional amendments and alleged fraud/tortious conduct to seek money damages	Gov't argued the cited constitutional provisions are not money‑mandating and tort claims are excluded from CFC by the Tucker Act	Held: Constitutional provisions cited do not mandate money damages; tort claims are precluded — jurisdictional dismissal

Key Cases Cited

Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (CFC cannot review district court decisions)
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts have only jurisdiction conferred by constitution and statute)
United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976) (Tucker Act is jurisdictional and requires a separate money‑mandating source)
LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Due Process and Equal Protection do not mandate payment of money by the United States)
Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200 (1993) (Tucker Act excludes tort claims from CFC jurisdiction)
Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Fourth Amendment violations do not give rise to money damages in CFC)