Rolle v. United States
17-1163
| Fed. Cl. | Jan 5, 2018Background
- In May 2014 a Bahamian‑flag vessel commanded by Nathaniel Erskine Rolle was intercepted by the U.S. Coast Guard after crew observed bales jettisoned; Coast Guard recovered large quantities of marijuana and cocaine and detained Rolle.
- The Coast Guard boarded with Bahamian consent to exercise jurisdiction, arrested Rolle, sank the vessel, transported him to the U.S., and he was tried and convicted in S.D. Fla. for drug and vessel‑resistance offenses and sentenced to 135 months.
- Rolle filed a pro se "Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus" in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (Aug. 28, 2017) seeking immediate release and alleging (inter alia) lack of Coast Guard jurisdiction, Miranda violations, and breaches of a maritime agreement between the U.S. and the Bahamas.
- The Government moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1), arguing the Court of Federal Claims lacks authority to grant habeas relief and that the complaint seeks release (not money damages) and fails to identify a money‑mandating source.
- The Court considered Tucker Act jurisdictional principles, the habeas statute allocation to district courts, the Contract Disputes Act scope, and pro se pleading standards.
- The Court granted the Government’s motion and dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction, directing entry of judgment for the Government.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims may grant habeas corpus relief | Rolle contends the Court has jurisdiction to grant habeas and release him under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and related custody provisions | Gov't: § 2241 does not empower the Court of Federal Claims; habeas is for district courts and courts of appeals | Court: No — the Court of Federal Claims is not among courts authorized to grant habeas; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether Tucker Act jurisdiction exists absent a money‑mandating source | Rolle argues his deprivation and treaty/contract claims bring the case within the Court’s jurisdiction (citing § 1495 and maritime agreement) | Gov't: Plaintiff seeks only release, not money damages, and fails to identify a money‑mandating statute or contract | Court: No Tucker Act jurisdiction; plaintiff did not identify a separate money‑mandating source |
| Whether the maritime agreement is a contract within the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) | Rolle asserts the U.S.–Bahamas maritime agreement is an enforceable contract and invokes the CDA/Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction | Gov't: The Agreement is a law‑enforcement cooperation agreement, not a procurement contract subject to the CDA | Court: CDA does not apply; the Agreement is not within CDA procurement/disposal scope |
| Whether pro se status relaxes jurisdictional burden | Rolle relies on liberal pro se pleading standards to sustain jurisdictional allegations | Gov't: Plaintiff still must prove jurisdictional facts; pro se status does not eliminate burden | Court: Pro se leniency does not excuse failure to meet jurisdictional requirements; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (Tucker Act is jurisdictional and does not create substantive money‑mandating rights)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (source of substantive law must fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation to confer Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- Ledford v. United States, 297 F.3d 1378 (Court of Federal Claims is not empowered to grant habeas relief)
- Todd v. United States, 386 F.3d 1091 (Tucker Act jurisdiction requires identification of a separate money‑mandating substantive right)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards but do not excuse failures)