Rivera v. United States
105 Fed. Cl. 644
Fed. Cl.2012Background
- Pro se plaintiff David Mark Rivera, a federal prisoner, filed a September 16, 2011 Complaint in the Court of Federal Claims seeking repayment of funds he allegedly deposited with the U.S. Treasury under a sovereign-citizen redemption theory.
- Plaintiff contends he is a sovereign entity, not subject to U.S. law, and that a trust/registry account created by birth certificate and social security number obligates the government to repay hundreds of millions of dollars.
- The Complaint alleges Plaintiff has a perfected security interest in property held in his name and that the Treasury is acting as trustee, withholding repayment.
- The Government moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing lack of a valid contract, lack of jurisdiction, and absence of a money-mandating basis for relief.
- Plaintiff filed responses asserting jurisdiction under various statutes, including the Tucker Acts and money-mandating provisions, and requesting injunctive relief for retaliation.
- The court ultimately held that the claims are not cognizable under the Tucker Act or money-mandating statutes and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tucker Act jurisdiction exists | Rivera asserts jurisdiction under the Tucker Act and related statutes. | Government argues no independent money-mandating right and no contract. | Lacks jurisdiction; Tucker Act requires a money-mandating source. |
| Whether birth certificates/social security numbers create a contract | These documents form contracts enabling repayment of funds. | Birth certificates and SSNs do not create contractual rights. | Frivolous; no contract basis. |
| Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2042 provides a money-mandating basis | § 2042 governs disbursement of court-held funds and creates entitlement. | § 2042 does not impose monetary obligations on the Government and is not money-mandating. | Not money-mandating; claims dismissed. |
| Whether 31 U.S.C. §§ 1321/1322 provide relief | Trust funds exist and should be distributed under these provisions. | No credible trust exists; statutes do not authorize payment here. | No relief under §1321/1322; no credible trust. |
| Whether injunctive relief is available in this context | Requests injunctive relief for retaliation and to compel repayment. | Equitable relief requires linkage to a money judgment; court lacks basis. | No jurisdiction for such injunctive relief absent monetary claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gravatt v. United States, 100 Fed.Cl. 279 (2011) (birth certificate/SSN do not create contract rights; not money-mandating)
- United States v. Klein, 303 U.S. 276 (1938) (jurisdiction under Tucker Act requires independent substantive right)
- City of El Centro v. United States, 922 F.2d 816 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (implied-in-fact contracts; government authority to bind)
- Jan’s Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (nonfrivolous assertion required to recover under money-mandating source)
- National Air Traffic Controllers Ass’n v. United States, 160 F.3d 714 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (equitable relief ancillary to monetary claims; limits on jurisdiction)
- Voisin v. United States, 80 Fed.Cl. 164 (2008) (equitable relief tied to money judgment requirement)
- Hercules Inc. v. United States, 516 U.S. 417 (1996) (jurisdiction limited to contracts implied in fact, not contracts implied in law)