Rusk v. United States
16-1640
| Fed. Cl. | Dec 19, 2016Background
- Pro se plaintiff Zachary R. E. Rusk filed a complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
- The Court reviewed the complaint and determined on its face that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The Court explained that under RCFC 12(h)(3) it must dismiss actions when it determines it lacks jurisdiction.
- The opinion describes the Tucker Act's limits: the Court’s jurisdiction requires a contract-based claim or a money-mandating statutory/constitutional provision.
- Rusk’s complaint invoked the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and alleged tort-like grievances and/or sought review of other courts’ actions.
- The Court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, granted Rusk in forma pauperis status, and closed the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court has jurisdiction under the Tucker Act | Rusk asserted constitutional claims and other grievances seeking relief from the government | The government (and Court) contended the pleadings do not assert a contract or money-mandating law | Dismissed: no Tucker Act jurisdiction on the face of the complaint |
| Whether Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims are money-mandating | Rusk relied on Due Process and Equal Protection provisions as bases for relief | Government argued those constitutional provisions are not money-mandating for Tucker Act purposes | Held: Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are not money-mandating here; do not confer jurisdiction |
| Whether tort claims are within the Court’s jurisdiction | Rusk’s allegations included tort-like complaints against the government | Government argued Tucker Act excludes tort claims from this Court’s jurisdiction | Held: Tucker Act precludes jurisdiction over tort claims |
| Whether the Court can review decisions of other federal courts | Rusk sought review/relief related to actions by other courts | Government argued this Court is not an appellate tribunal and cannot review other courts’ decisions | Held: Court lacks jurisdiction to review district courts or courts of appeal decisions |
Key Cases Cited
- Folden v. United States, 379 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir.) (jurisdiction may be raised at any time; evaluate complaint on its face)
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (U.S.) (Tucker Act confers jurisdiction only when a statute gives a substantive right to money damages)
- LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025 (Fed. Cir.) (Fifth Amendment equal protection not money-mandating)
- Smith v. United States, 709 F.3d 1114 (Fed. Cir.) (Due Process Clauses of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments not money-mandating)
- Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378 (Fed. Cir.) (Court of Federal Claims cannot review decisions of district courts)
- Vereda, Ltda. v. United States, 271 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir.) (this Court is not an appellate tribunal for other federal courts)
- Aerolineas Argentinas v. United States, 77 F.3d 1564 (Fed. Cir.) (illegal-exaction doctrine: Due Process may support money recovery only in limited circumstances)
- Brown v. United States, 227 Ct. Cl. 786 (Ct. Cl.) (no jurisdiction over claims alleging deprivation of liberty under the Fifth Amendment)