Pikulin v. United States
97 Fed. Cl. 71
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- Pikulin, pro se, filed a federal suit on January 14, 2011 alleging federal officials failed to defend the U.S. Constitution and laws.
- Plaintiff argued a purported “Willful Default Judgment” from the Southern District of New York should be enforced against the United States.
- Court granted in forma pauperis status but found lack of jurisdiction and that the complaint was frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
- Plaintiff’s prior litigation history comprises numerous actions in SDNY, EDNY, and the Court of Federal Claims arising from the same factual nexus.
- The court repeatedly rejected theories based on civil-rights statutes, treaties, and international agreements as basis for money damages against the United States.
- Court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and as frivolous, and directed entry of judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can the Court of Federal Claims hear claims against individual officials? | Pikulin names Obama, Holder, and Duff as defendants seeking relief. | Only the United States may be sued; individuals are immune. | No; claims against individuals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Does the Tucker Act confer jurisdiction here for money damages? | Claims arise from constitutional rights and treaties invoked under Tucker Act. | Tucker Act is jurisdictional and does not create money damages; must have money-mandating right elsewhere. | Lacks jurisdiction; no money-mandating basis. |
| Are the asserted claims time-barred by the statute of limitations? | Enforcement of a 1995 default judgment is at issue. | Sand & Gravel rule imposes a six-year absolute limit; accrual occurred long ago. | Time-barred; claims accrued over fifteen years prior. |
| May the case proceed in forma pauperis despite frivolousness? | Plaintiff seeks waiver of fees due to poverty. | Courts must dismiss frivolous or malicious actions under § 1915(e)(2). | Frivolous; case dismissed under § 1915(e)(2). |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (1941) (sovereign immunity; United States as defendant unless waived.)
- Testan v. United States, 424 U.S. 392 (1976) ( Tucker Act does not create substantive money damages.)
- Loveladies Harbor, Inc. v. United States, 27 F.3d 1545 (Fed.Cir.1994) (money claims must be money-mandating sources.)
- LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025 (Fed.Cir.1995) (Due Process/Fourteenth Amendment claims not money-mandating.)
- Mullenberg v. United States, 857 F.2d 770 (Fed.Cir.1988) (due process/equal protection claims not Tucker Act jurisdictional basis.)
- Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004) (international rights not self-executing; not enforceable in federal courts.)
- Gimbernat v. United States, 84 Fed.Cl. 350 (Fed.Cl.2008) (UDHR not a self-executing money damages source.)
- Miller v. United States, 67 Fed.Cl. 195 (Fed.Cl.2005) (treaty-law claims generally outside Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction.)
- Phaidin v. United States, 28 Fed.Cl. 231 (Fed.Cl.1993) (UDHR is aspirational; not enforceable as money damages under Tucker Act.)