Spencer v. United States
98 Fed. Cl. 349
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- Plaintiff sought in forma pauperis status; court granted but dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) as frivolous.
- Plaintiff, a convicted felon, was charged in Alaska with illegal possession of firearm by a felon and forfeiture; convicted after trial.
- Plaintiff alleges district and circuit court discovery denials and seeks hearings against federal actors; claims revolve around alleged fiduciary duty and UCC violations.
- Plaintiff contends U.S. agencies seized personal property without just compensation; court analyzes takings and jurisdictional viability.
- Court determines most claims are frivolous or outside Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction; takings claim rejected as nonfrivolous but not properly actionable.
- Defendant’s 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) motions granted; case dismissed without prejudice; transfer to another court deemed inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CFC has jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims | Spencer asserts money-mandating rights under Tucker Act. | Claims are frivolous or nonjurisdictional under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). | CFC lacks jurisdiction; frivolous claims dismissed. |
| Whether claims target individuals or non-federal entities | Alleges actions by federal officers and agencies. | CFC lacks authority to hear claims against individuals or non-federal entities. | Lacks jurisdiction over non-U.S. officials/entities. |
| Whether takings/forfeiture claims are cognizable under Tucker Act | Claims a taking occurred and seeks compensation. | Forfeiture and police power seizures are not compensable takings under Fifth Amendment. | Takings claim not viable; no just compensation remedy under Tucker Act. |
| Whether review of other courts' rulings is within CFC jurisdiction | Disputes with district/circuit court rulings. | CFC cannot review other courts’ decisions. | Lacks jurisdiction to review those rulings. |
| Whether the case should be transferred instead of dismissed | Request for transfer to proper authorities if not heard. | Transfer not appropriate where claims are frivolous and meritless. | Transfer not in the interest of justice; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jan’s Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. FAA, 525 F.3d 1299 (Fed.Cir.2008) (jurisdictional bar where claim not nonfrivolous under money-mandating source)
- Murray v. United States, 817 F.2d 1580 (Fed.Cir.1987) (takings jurisdiction under Fifth Amendment; bargained for just compensation)
- Moden v. United States, 404 F.3d 1335 (Fed.Cir.2005) (jurisdictional basis for takings claims under Tucker Act)
- Clark v. United States, 116 F. App’x 278 (Fed.Cir.2004) (dismissal of UCC-based claims; no money damages)
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1992) (frivolous and malicious claims may be dismissed under 1915)