Simmons v. United States
21-921
| Fed. Cl. | Jun 28, 2021Background:
- Pro se plaintiff Melvin J. Simmons filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims seeking annulment of his 1987 conviction and monetary and equitable relief for various alleged constitutional violations and other wrongs.
- The complaint is handwritten, largely incoherent, and asserts a range of theories including a Bivens-style civil-rights claim, tort claims, alleged copyright/patent infringement of his name under 28 U.S.C. §1498(b), and constitutional claims under multiple Amendments.
- The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1), arguing the Court of Federal Claims (CFC) lacks authority over many of the asserted claim types and that Tucker Act jurisdiction is not established.
- The Government also pointed out procedural defects: Simmons raised a new contract claim for the first time in briefing, and he failed to allege required elements for §1498 claims (e.g., registered copyright or issued patent).
- The court found Simmons failed to carry his jurisdictional burden, concluding the CFC lacks power to review state/federal court judgments, cannot hear Bivens or tort/§1983 claims (which belong in district courts), and Simmons did not identify any money-mandating source to invoke Tucker Act jurisdiction; the contract theory in briefing was waived.
- The Court granted the Government’s motion and dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; declaratory/injunctive relief was also unavailable in the CFC.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CFC may review and annul state/federal court convictions | Simmons seeks annulment and review of his 1987 conviction | Gov argues CFC cannot review other courts' judgments | Dismissed; CFC lacks jurisdiction to review state/federal court decisions |
| Whether Bivens/individual-capacity constitutional claims can be heard in CFC | Simmons frames claims as a Bivens action against judges/officials | Gov: Tucker Act grants CFC jurisdiction over suits vs. the United States, not individual officials | Dismissed; Bivens claims are outside CFC jurisdiction |
| Jurisdiction over tort and §1983/civil-rights claims | Simmons alleges bad-faith denials and other tort-like harms | Gov: tort and §1983 claims lie in federal district courts; Tucker Act excludes torts | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; such claims belong in district courts |
| Whether constitutional Amendments alleged provide money-mandating source | Simmons invokes multiple Amendments as basis for relief | Gov: Except for Fifth Amendment takings clause, Amendments aren’t money-mandating | Dismissed; constitutional claims do not establish Tucker Act jurisdiction |
| Whether §1498(b) supports copyright/patent claims | Simmons alleges infringement of his name/copyright/patent | Gov: §1498 requires registered copyright or issued patent; Simmons made no such allegations | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; plaintiff failed to plead required registration/patent issuance |
| Availability of declaratory or injunctive relief in CFC | Simmons seeks declaratory and injunctive relief | Gov: Tucker Act does not independently confer equitable relief; Declaratory Judgment Act doesn’t confer jurisdiction here | Denied; equitable relief is outside CFC jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Dow Jones & Co. v. Ablaise Ltd., 606 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (subject-matter jurisdiction is a threshold requirement)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (U.S. 1983) (source of substantive law must fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation)
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (U.S. 1976) (Tucker Act requires money-mandating source)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (U.S. 1971) (recognizing damages remedy against federal officers in limited circumstances)
- Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Bivens actions lie outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims)
- Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (CFC lacks jurisdiction to review district court decisions)
- Trafny v. United States, 503 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Fourth and Eighth Amendments are not money-mandating for Tucker Act purposes)
- United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1969) (Declaratory Judgment Act does not expand CFC jurisdiction)