Shelden v. United States
17-1507
| Fed. Cl. | Nov 16, 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Shelden filed suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims seeking $24 billion and injunctive relief, alleging decades-long conspiracies, harassment, torture, and constitutional violations by states, state and local officials, federal agencies, and individuals.
- Named defendants included the States of California, Florida, Arizona, the Buckeye Police Department and judge, the FBI, and the U.S. Department of Justice.
- Claims asserted: violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments; failure to investigate/prosecute civil-rights violations; obstruction; RICO and antitrust violations; and various torts (psychological assault, harassment, conspiracy).
- Plaintiff sought both money damages (including compensatory, punitive, and double damages) and equitable relief (assistance enforcing a divorce order, passport help, access to records, injunctive relief for lost insurance and reputational harm).
- The Court conducted a sua sponte jurisdictional review under RCFC 12(h)(3) and the Tucker Act framework, concluding it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over all claims and parties alleged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over claims against states and state/local officials | Shelden seeks relief against states and local actors for constitutional violations and torts | Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over suits against states/local governments; jurisdiction is only against the United States | Dismissed: no jurisdiction over claims versus states or local entities/officials |
| Constitutional claims (First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth) seeking money damages | Constitutional violations are compensable (invoking Bivens) | These constitutional provisions (except Takings Clause) are not money-mandating under Tucker Act; Bivens does not create jurisdiction in this court | Dismissed: constitutional claims not within court’s Tucker Act jurisdiction |
| Statutory civil-rights, RICO, and antitrust claims | Shelden invokes 42 U.S.C. § 1983, RICO, and antitrust statutes for relief | Civil-rights, RICO, and antitrust actions are within federal district courts’ exclusive jurisdiction (not Court of Federal Claims); RICO/antitrust are not Tucker Act money-mandating statutes | Dismissed: statutory claims must be brought in district court; not within this court’s jurisdiction |
| Tort claims against the United States (assault, harassment, conspiracy) | Alleged tortious harms and seeks damages under FTCA-related theories | Tucker Act excludes tort claims; tort claims against the United States belong in district court under FTCA | Dismissed: tort claims outside Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Testan v. United States, 424 U.S. 392 (U.S. 1976) (Tucker Act does not by itself create substantive money-mandating rights)
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (plaintiff must identify separate source of substantive law that creates right to money damages)
- Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (U.S. 2010) (courts have independent obligation to determine subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2006) (if court lacks jurisdiction it must dismiss the action)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (U.S. 1971) (recognized implied damages remedy against federal officials in limited circumstances)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994) (party asserting jurisdiction bears burden of establishing it)
- United States v. Connolly, 716 F.2d 882 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (First Amendment alone is not money-mandating)
- Shearin v. United States, 992 F.2d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over tort claims)
- Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Bivens and limits on Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over constitutional claims)