Poblete v. United States, 17-1069

Plaintiff Luis Ivan Poblete, a D.C. resident, sued over foreclosure and eviction proceedings involving his home, naming the United States, the District of Columbia, the D.C. Superior Court (Landlord–Tenant Branch), and a private trust.
Claims included trespass, a tort claim (attempted kidnapping) against the D.C. Superior Court, and an alleged First Amendment violation; plaintiff sought relief under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Poblete filed an original complaint and moved to amend shortly afterward; the Government opposed amendment and moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The Government argued the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction because (1) the APA is not money-mandating for Tucker Act purposes, (2) the Court cannot entertain claims against D.C. entities or private parties, and (3) no separate money‑mandating statute or contract was identified.
The court treated the motion to amend under RCFC 15 and reviewed futility (whether the amended complaint could survive a motion to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1)), and concluded the proposed amendments were futile.
Ruling: the court denied leave to amend and granted the Government’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; judgment to be entered for the Government.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction under the APA	Poblete invoked 5 U.S.C. § 702 to obtain judicial review and relief	APA §702 waives immunity for non‑monetary relief only; APA is not money‑mandating for Tucker Act jurisdiction	Denied — APA does not provide a money‑mandating basis; Court lacks jurisdiction under APA
Whether claims against D.C. and D.C. courts are within this court's jurisdiction	Plaintiff named D.C. entities and sought relief against them	Court of Federal Claims only has jurisdiction over claims against the United States, not D.C. or private parties	Denied — claims against D.C. entities and private trust are outside this court's jurisdiction
Whether tort and First Amendment claims are cognizable here	Poblete alleged attempted kidnapping (tort) and First Amendment violation by D.C. Superior Court	Tort claims belong in federal district courts under FTCA; First Amendment does not by itself provide monetary relief here	Denied — tort and First Amendment claims are not properly before this court
Whether any money‑mandating statute or contract was identified	Plaintiff did not identify a separate source entitling him to money damages	No separate money‑mandating statute or contract alleged to invoke Tucker Act jurisdiction	Denied — absence of money‑mandating source requires dismissal

A & D Auto Sales, Inc. v. United States, 748 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir.) (standard for granting leave to amend under Rule 15)
Farnan v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (U.S.) (liberal policy favoring amendment)
Meyer Grp., Ltd. v. United States, 115 Fed. Cl. 645 (Fed. Cl.) (futility: amended pleading must show claim could survive dispositive motion)
Greenlee County v. United States, 487 F.3d 871 (Fed. Cir.) (Tucker Act requires separate money‑mandating source)
Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir.) (APA §702 is not money‑mandating for Tucker Act jurisdiction)
United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (U.S.) (Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction is limited to suits against the United States)