Spengler v. United States
127 Fed. Cl. 597
| Fed. Cl. | 2016Background
- Pro se plaintiff Andrew R. Spengler, incarcerated at FCI Fort Worth, sued the United States seeking an accounting, injunctions, restoration of allegedly diverted Commissary and Welfare Fund monies, destruction of TRULINCS data, and monetary damages.
- He contends the Commissary and Welfare Fund (statutorily classified as a "trust" under 31 U.S.C. §1321) imposes fiduciary duties on the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and that BOP breached those duties by funding and operating TRULINCS/TRUFONE and related commissary expenditures.
- Relief requested included money damages for diversion of Fund monies and injunctive relief to limit government use of inmate communications and related practices.
- The government moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1), arguing the Tucker Act does not confer jurisdiction because the claims "sound in tort" and no money-mandating source imposing fiduciary duties exists.
- The court found the statutory designation of the Commissary Fund as a "trust" and the relevant DOJ/BOP authorities do not, by themselves, create specific money‑mandating fiduciary obligations sufficient to invoke Tucker Act jurisdiction.
- The court also denied transfer to a district court under 28 U.S.C. §1631 because plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. §1997e(a). The case was dismissed without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court has Tucker Act jurisdiction for monetary claims based on the Commissary Fund being a "trust" | Spengler: §1321’s designation and DOJ/BOP circulars create fiduciary duties and a money‑mandating source for damages | Gov: The trust designation and regulations do not impose specific fiduciary obligations that mandate money damages; claims sound in tort | Court: No Tucker Act jurisdiction — statutory designation alone insufficient to create money‑mandating fiduciary duties |
| Whether injunctive relief is cognizable here in this Court | Spengler: also seeks injunctive relief (accounting, restrictions on TRULINCS/TRUFONE) ancillary to his claims | Gov: Injunctive claims are not within this Court absent a proper money claim; alternate forum is district court | Court: No jurisdiction over monetary claims, so injunctive claims not incidental to a proper Tucker Act claim and thus not within this Court |
| Whether transfer to a district court is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §1631 | Spengler: implied request to transfer if dismissal is required | Gov: Transfer inappropriate because plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies required for prison‑conditions claims | Court: Declined transfer because plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. §1997e(a) |
| Whether Spengler exhausted administrative remedies under BOP procedures | Spengler: contends BOP missed deadlines and procedural failures prevented exhaustion | Gov: Administrative record shows multiple defective filings and failure to cure or follow required resubmission steps | Court: Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of exhaustion; available remedies were not completed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Navajo Nation, 537 U.S. 488 (statutory "trust" must impose specific fiduciary duties to be money‑mandating)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (Tucker Act requires independent money‑mandating source; background on fiduciary duties and damages)
- United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535 (statutory "trust" language alone may create only a limited trust, not full fiduciary duties)
- United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 564 U.S. 162 (Congress may label relations a "trust" without imposing all private‑law fiduciary duties)
- Hopi Tribe v. United States, 782 F.3d 662 (Fed. Cir.) (plaintiff must identify statutes/regulations imposing specific obligations bearing hallmarks of conventional fiduciary relationships)