Stewart v. United States
17-1145
| Fed. Cl. | Sep 18, 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Nicoll Stewart filed a letter deemed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims alleging government surveillance and harms arising largely from actions by a Department of Child Services and related custody/support matters.
- Stewart did not pay the filing fee initially; the Court ordered payment or an IFP application and Stewart later filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
- Stewart reported monthly income of about $1,200, no savings or significant assets, and an annual income near the 2017 federal poverty level.
- The Court granted Stewart's IFP application under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), finding she demonstrated inability to pay filing fees.
- The Court examined subject-matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act and concluded Stewart's claims targeted private parties and state/local actors (child services, court-appointed attorneys) rather than the United States.
- Because Stewart did not identify any claim seeking money damages from the United States or a separate substantive source of law waiving sovereign immunity, the Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; an additional letter filing was returned unfiled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stewart qualifies for in forma pauperis status | Stewart asserts inability to pay (income ~$1,200/mo; no assets) | (No opposition) Court applies § 1915 standard | Granted IFP — income near poverty level sufficed |
| Whether the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act | Stewart alleges federal involvement and damages (surveillance, child-support/driver's license harms) | United States (and the Court) note claims target state/local actors and private parties; Tucker Act requires claim for money against U.S. based on separate substantive law | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — no claim against U.S. and no identified source of money-mandating law |
| Whether claims against non-federal defendants may proceed in this court | Stewart's factual allegations focus on Department of Child Services and attorneys | Court reiterates only the United States is a proper defendant in this forum | Claims against non-federal actors dismissed (court lacks jurisdiction) |
| Whether custody/child-support disputes invoke Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction | Stewart ties harms to custody and support outcomes | Custody/support matters do not seek money damages from U.S. and are outside this court's remit | Such family-law claims are not within Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Adkins v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours, 335 U.S. 331 (affords IFP relief to litigants not absolutely destitute)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (court may raise subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte)
- Rick's Mushroom Service, Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d 1338 (Tucker Act requires separate source of substantive law creating right to money damages)
- Jan's Helicopter Service, Inc. v. Federal Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d 1299 (Tucker Act does not create substantive cause of action)
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (only the United States is proper defendant in Court of Federal Claims)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards but must still satisfy jurisdictional requirements)