Portnov v. United States
17-2293
| Fed. Cir. | Dec 11, 2017Background
- Portnov originally sued Carnival in 2013 (Seattle) alleging discrimination and emotional distress after being denied boarding; that suit was dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee.
- He later sued in the Northern District of California raising the same facts; the court dismissed for improper venue because his contract required arbitration in Florida; the Ninth Circuit affirmed and deemed his appeal frivolous.
- Portnov filed multiple suits against the United States and federal judges alleging emotional distress under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA); district courts dismissed those complaints and the Ninth Circuit characterized some appeals as frivolous.
- In May 2017 Portnov filed in the Court of Federal Claims seeking $2.7 million from the United States for personal injuries and “injury” from three years of judicial actions, invoking the FTCA as the money-mandating source.
- The Court of Federal Claims dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because FTCA tort claims are within district court jurisdiction, not the Court of Federal Claims.
- Portnov appealed; the Federal Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over Portnov's suit alleging torts by federal actors | Portnov: FTCA is a money-mandating source allowing the Court of Federal Claims to hear his claim against the United States | United States: FTCA vests tort jurisdiction exclusively in federal district courts, not the Court of Federal Claims | Held: No jurisdiction — FTCA tort claims are not within the Tucker Act jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims |
| Whether any other money-mandating source supports Tucker Act jurisdiction | Portnov: No other source asserted beyond FTCA | United States: No other money-mandating statute, constitutional provision, regulation, or contract identified | Held: No — plaintiff failed to identify a non-tort money-mandating source for Tucker Act jurisdiction |
| Whether tort-sounding claims can be recast to fit the Tucker Act | Portnov: Implicitly attempted to proceed in Court of Federal Claims despite tort label | United States: Tort claims cannot be brought in Court of Federal Claims; Tucker Act excludes torts | Held: Tort allegations cannot be the basis for Tucker Act jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was appropriate to resolve sua sponte | Portnov: Contends claims are only against the United States and thus proper here | United States: Court of Federal Claims lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over FTCA claims | Held: The Court of Federal Claims correctly dismissed sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983) (Tucker Act requires a money-mandating source)
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976) (Tucker Act jurisdiction limits and money-mandating requirement)
- Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation v. United States, 870 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (describing Tucker Act prerequisites)
- U.S. Marine, Inc. v. United States, 722 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (FTCA vests tort jurisdiction in district courts)
- Shearin v. United States, 992 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over tort claims)
- Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction for fraud/tort claims)
- Ledford v. United States, 297 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (distinguishing district court FTCA jurisdiction from Court of Federal Claims)