Schrader v. United States
103 Fed. Cl. 92
Fed. Cl.2012Background
- Schrader, pro se, appears as lessee of a 40-acre rock pit in Myrtle Point, Oregon, under a lease running Feb 1, 2006–Jan 31, 2011 at $0.75 per yard.
- Schrader was imprisoned in February 2011 during ongoing Mine Act-related litigation in the Oregon District Court.
- MSHA cited Schrader for Mine Act health and safety violations after September 2008 inspections at the mine.
- Oregon District Court issued a TRO (Jan 2010) and a permanent injunction (Feb 2010) enjoining mining until compliance.
- Schrader petitioned this Court for a writ of prohibition on May 4, 2011, seeking to bar further actions by the Oregon District Court, MSHA, and a prosecutor.
- Defendant moved to dismiss arguing lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a regulatory takings claim; petition was contested and the court dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act | Schrader seeks money relief against the United States for constitutional issues | Court lacks jurisdiction over most claims and Takings claim not money-mandating | Dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a regulatory taking claim |
| Regulatory taking claim viability | Mine Act actions deprived him of property rights | Mine Act background principle precludes takings claim; no cognizable property interest | Takings claim dismissed for failure to state a claim |
| Claims against non-United States entities (Oregon District Court, judge, prosecutor) | Equitable relief against federal officials and court | Claims are beyond Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over non-United States actors |
| Equitable relief jurisdiction of the Court | Request for writ/enjoining court actions | Equitable relief not generally available against the United States | Equitable relief claims dismissed; no ancillary authority shown |
| Transfer under 28 U.S.C. 1631 | Not explicitly requested; broadly meritorious transfer possible | Transfer not appropriate given lack of merit | Transfer not appropriate; case not meritorious in another court |
Key Cases Cited
- Folden v. United States, 379 F.3d 1344 (Fed.Cir.2004) (subject-matter jurisdiction may be challenged; pleadings presumed true for jurisdictional review)
- Shearin v. United States, 992 F.2d 1195 (Fed.Cir.1993) (jurisdictional questions decided on face of pleadings)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S.1972) (pro se pleading still must meet jurisdictional requirements)
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (U.S.1941) (claims against others than United States ignored for lack of jurisdiction)
- Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378 (Fed.Cir.1994) (reviewing decisions of federal district courts beyond this court’s reach)
- Jan’s Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. FAA, 525 F.3d 1299 (Fed.Cir.2008) (requires independent money-mandating right for Tucker Act claims)
- M & J Coal Co. v. United States, 47 F.3d 1148 (Fed.Cir.1995) (takings challenges barred where background principles apply; police power enforcement usually not a taking)
- Bair v. United States, 515 F.3d 1323 (Fed.Cir.2008) (identifies two-tier takings analysis; property interest and whether taking is compensable)
- Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (U.S.1992) (background principles constrain resulting takings claims)
- Air Pegasus of D.C., Inc. v. United States, 424 F.3d 1206 (Fed.Cir.2005) (background principles may preclude takings claims post-enactment)
- Rith Energy, Inc. v. United States, 270 F.3d 1347 (Fed.Cir.2001) (police-power enforcement generally not compensable)
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (U.S.1978) (classic takings framework for regulatory burdens)
- Tex. Peanut Farmers v. United States, 409 F.3d 1370 (Fed.Cir.2005) (transfer considerations on jurisdictional grounds are contextual)
- Phang v. United States, 87 Fed.Cl. 321 (Fed.Cl.2009) (sua sponte transfer discussion for pro se plaintiffs)