Stanwyck v. United States
127 Fed. Cl. 308
Fed. Cl.2016Background
- Pro se plaintiff Steven J. Stanwyck, a three-time Chapter 7 debtor, sued the United States alleging bankruptcy cases were improperly closed because trustees lacked bonds under 11 U.S.C. § 322, and seeks at least $200,000,000.
- Plaintiff asserted jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, constitutional provisions, various bankruptcy statutes/regulations, and RICO; he also alleged a conspiracy involving the Administrative Office and the Executive Office for U.S. Trustees.
- The government moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (and alternatively 12(b)(6)), arguing no money-mandating statute or contract with the U.S. was alleged and that criminal/RICO claims and bankruptcy review are beyond this court.
- Plaintiff argued he had an express or implied contract with the Executive Office for U.S. Trustees based on several statutes/regulations, recharacterized RICO as civil, sought leave to amend, and alternatively requested transfer to a district court.
- The Court found plaintiff failed to allege an express or implied-in-fact contract or identify any money-mandating statute, held it lacks jurisdiction over criminal/RICO claims and most constitutional claims under the Tucker Act, denied leave to amend as futile, and denied transfer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contract / Tucker Act jurisdiction | Statutes/regulations and alleged duties by EOUST created an implied contract or obligation entitling him to money | No express or implied contract pleaded; cited statutes are not money-mandating or intended to create private contracts | Dismissed: plaintiff failed to plead elements of an implied-in-fact contract; no Tucker Act jurisdiction |
| RICO and criminal-code claims | Alleged RICO conspiracy and criminal violations harmed him; recasts RICO as civil | Court lacks jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions and such RICO/ciminal claims; RICO civil remedy is for district courts | Dismissed: court lacks jurisdiction over criminal matters and civil RICO claims against the government |
| Constitutional claims (Due process / Takings / Equal protection) | Invoked Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments as jurisdictional bases; suggested possible takings after discovery | Fifth/Fourteenth Amendments are not money-mandating under the Tucker Act; bankruptcy-court actions beyond this court’s review | Dismissed: constitutional claims not money-mandating; takings claim inadequate and cannot be premised on ultra vires/criminal acts |
| Procedural remedies (amendment / transfer) | Seeks leave to amend (health issues) and transfer to Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 | Amendment would be futile; transfer not appropriate because claims are not cognizable in district court against the government | Denied: amendment would be futile; transfer denied because claims lacked a proper forum against the government |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (U.S. 1983) (Tucker Act jurisdiction requires money-mandating source)
- United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1969) (Tucker Act claim must be for money damages)
- Testan v. United States, 424 U.S. 392 (U.S. 1976) (statute must fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation)
- Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 470 U.S. 451 (U.S. 1985) (statutes/regulations ordinarily do not create private contractual rights)
- Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (discussed limits on Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over criminal matters)
- Rick's Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (insubstantial allegations of an implied-in-fact contract do not confer jurisdiction)