Pleasant-Bey v. United States
2011 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1529
| Fed. Cl. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Boaz Pleasant-Bey is incarcerated and sues alleging racial discrimination from constitutional language and seeks sovereignty and non-taxed status.
- Plaintiff complains birth documents identify him with a “slave name” and race term; he seeks identification as a Sovereign Indigenous Native African.
- Plaintiff requests $50 million in gold and broad constitutional amendments to include Indigenous Native Africans as Citizens and People of the United States.
- Plaintiff moves to proceed IFP and for appointment of counsel.
- Court grants IFP, denies counsel, and grants defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. | Pleasant-Bey alleges Congress and the Constitution require relief. | Claims are not money-mandating; Tucker Act jurisdiction not present. | Lacks Tucker Act jurisdiction. |
| Whether Thirteenth/Fourteenth Amendment claims are money-mandating and within jurisdiction. | Amendments entitle relief against discrimination. | Amendments do not mandate money damages. | No jurisdiction for Thirteenth/Fourteenth Amendment claims. |
| Whether discrimination claims under Title VII/§1981/§1983 fall within this court’s jurisdiction. | Claims of racial discrimination arise under federal statutes. | District Courts, not the Court of Federal Claims, have such jurisdiction. | No jurisdiction for these discrimination claims. |
| Whether transfer to a federal district court is appropriate. | Transfer could be warranted if jurisdiction is lacking. | Transfer not warranted; case would be dismissed; Missouri-like factors moot. | Transfer inappropriate; dismissal maintained. |
| Whether appointment of counsel is warranted. | Counsel needed to obtain exculpatory evidence. | No extraordinary circumstances to appoint counsel in civil case. | Denied; no extraordinary civil-recognition circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (no jurisdiction over non-money-mandating constitutional claims)
- Jan’s Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. FAA, 525 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ( takings and money-mandating source; money judgments required)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (U.S. 1983) (Tucker Act; jurisdiction tethered to money-mandating rights)