Portnov v. United States, 17-672

Abraham Portnov (pro se) and his wife, Canadian/Israeli passport holders, were initially prevented from boarding a Carnival cruise in Buenos Aires due to lack of U.S. visas and missing luggage; they later boarded and retrieved belongings but claim emotional injury.
Portnov sued Carnival in the N.D. Cal.; the magistrate dismissed for improper venue because the ticket required arbitration in Florida; the Ninth Circuit summarily affirmed.
Portnov filed multiple suits alleging wrongdoing by Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal and sought relief in district courts and the Ninth Circuit; those suits were dismissed as barred by judicial immunity or as frivolous, and appeals were dismissed.
Portnov filed suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims seeking damages for Carnival’s alleged discrimination and for injuries he attributes to actions of the federal judiciary while pursuing redress.
The Court of Federal Claims sua sponte considered jurisdiction, granted Portnov in forma pauperis status, but concluded it lacked jurisdiction over claims against Carnival, claims against individual federal judges, and collateral attacks on prior federal court judgments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether this Court can hear tort/discrimination claims against Carnival	Portnov seeks money damages for alleged discriminatory conduct by Carnival employees	United States (as defendant) argues Court of Federal Claims only hears suits against the U.S.; private parties not proper defendants	Dismissed: Court lacks jurisdiction over claims against Carnival; only the U.S. is proper defendant in this court
Whether Court can entertain claims against individual federal judges or judicial conduct	Portnov alleges injuries caused by Magistrate Judge Grewal and other judicial officers	The Tucker Act permits suits only against the United States, not individual officers; judicial immunity bars suits against judges	Dismissed: No jurisdiction to hear claims against individual federal judicial officers
Whether Court can review or collateral-attack prior federal court judgments	Portnov attacks prior dismissals and appellate rulings as causing injury	The U.S. argues the Court of Federal Claims cannot review other federal courts’ judgments and collateral attacks would bypass appellate routes	Dismissed: Court lacks authority to review or collateral-attack prior federal court judgments
Whether Portnov qualifies for in forma pauperis status	Portnov applied for IFP and asserted inability to pay fees	— (no contrary position)	Granted: Court granted IFP and waived the filing fee

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (jurisdiction is threshold; court must resolve it before merits)
Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 (when jurisdiction ceases the court must dismiss)
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (courts must independently ensure subject-matter jurisdiction)
United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (sovereign immunity; waiver to be sued must be unequivocal)
United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (Tucker Act is jurisdictional and does not create substantive rights)
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (judicial immunity for judges acting within their authority)
U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P'ship, 513 U.S. 18 (collateral attack on judgments undermines orderly appellate process)
Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621 (Tucker Act grants jurisdiction over suits against the U.S., not individual officials)