Schirripa v. United States
16-1073
| Fed. Cl. | Jun 9, 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Jeffrey Schirripa mailed a sample of cannabinoids to the DOJ and the U.S. District Court (D.N.J.) in January 2015; the government acknowledged receipt and warned mailing might violate federal criminal statutes.
- Schirripa alleges the government’s classification of cannabinoids as Schedule I (and enforcement actions) violate his rights and amount to a regulatory taking; he also asserts a unilateral contract and brings a pre‑award bid protest and breach of contract claims related to government failure to “procure” his property under 50 U.S.C. § 212.
- The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction (RCFC 12(b)(1)) and for failure to state a claim (RCFC 12(b)(6)); plaintiff filed several ancillary motions and sought in forma pauperis status.
- The Court considered whether the Tucker Act confers jurisdiction over plaintiff’s bid protest and contract claims (money‑mandating source or valid contract) and whether the takings claim was plausible (and whether the government action must be conceded valid).
- The Court granted Schirripa in forma pauperis, but dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety: bid protest and contract claims for lack of jurisdiction (no interested party / no valid contract), takings claim for failure to state a plausible claim, and any CSA challenge as outside this Court’s jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing for pre‑award bid protest | Schirripa contends government failed to seize/procure his property under § 212, implying an interested party status | Government: Schirripa is not an actual or prospective bidder; he lacks the direct economic interest required for CICA standing | Court: Dismissed — Schirripa is not an "interested party" and lacks standing for a bid protest |
| Breach / unilateral contract with U.S. | Schirripa argues a unilateral contract arose when he deposited the cannabinoid sample with the court/DOJ | Government: No mutual intent, no promise by the government, and no facts establishing an express or implied‑in‑fact contract | Court: Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — plaintiff failed to plead a valid contract with required elements |
| Fifth Amendment takings claim | Schirripa alleges government enforcement/classification effects amount to a regulatory taking of property (patent/cannabinoids) | Government: Plaintiff must concede the validity/authorization of the government action to pursue a takings claim; here he challenges legality instead | Court: Dismissed for failure to state a plausible takings claim — plaintiff did not allege the government action was valid and authorized |
| Challenge to Controlled Substances Act classification | Plaintiff seeks declaratory/injunctive relief invalidating Schedule I classification and enforcement | Government: CSA challenges fall within district courts’ jurisdiction and are not proper here | Court: Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to entertain CSA classification challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts limited to jurisdiction authorized by Constitution and statute)
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976) (Tucker Act is jurisdictional and does not create substantive money‑mandating rights)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard: must state a claim plausible on its face)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (courts assume well‑pleaded factual allegations true and assess plausibility)
- Rex Servs. Corp. v. United States, 448 F.3d 1305 (2006) (bid protest standing requires "interested party")
- Kam‑Almaz v. United States, 682 F.3d 1364 (2012) (elements required to establish an express or implied‑in‑fact contract with the United States)
- Wells Fargo Bank v. United States, 88 F.3d 1012 (1996) (nature of unilateral contracts and performance‑conditioned promises)
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) (regulatory takings balancing test: character, economic impact, investment‑backed expectations)
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) (per se takings where regulation deprives owner of all economically viable use)
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982) (permanent physical occupation requires compensation)
- Tabb Lakes, Ltd. v. United States, 10 F.3d 796 (1993) (plaintiff must concede validity of government action to bring takings claim)