Straw v. United States, 21-1600

Background:

Andrew U.D. Straw appealed two Claims Court orders: dismissal of his takings complaint (No. 20-1157) for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction and denial of in forma pauperis (IFP) status (No. 21-745). He also asked this court to rescind a Claims Court Anti‑Filing Order and to remove the presiding Claims Court judge.
Straw alleged four takings in 20-1157 (Second Circuit clerk dismissals; Fourth Circuit panel assignments; Supreme Court clerk refusal to file a document; SBA denial of a PPP loan), seeking billions in damages; in 21-745 he sought $12,000,000 for the Supreme Court’s denials of certiorari.
The Claims Court dismissed 20-1157 because Straw failed to allege the challenged government actions were authorized (an essential element for a Fifth Amendment takings claim under the Tucker Act) and entered an Anti‑Filing Order based on Straw’s repeated frivolous filings.
The Claims Court denied IFP in 21-745, citing Straw’s extensive history of frivolous, repetitive litigation and the Anti‑Filing Order; the court required payment of the filing fee.
The Federal Circuit consolidated the appeals, affirmed the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, affirmed denial of IFP and the Anti‑Filing Order, rejected the recusal request, and remanded the IFP case to the Claims Court for further proceedings.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Claims Court had Tucker Act jurisdiction over Straw's takings claims	Straw argued he could challenge government actions and still concede the actors had authority; takings arose from dismissals and SBA denial	The government argued Straw failed to allege that challenged acts were authorized; unauthorized (ultra vires) acts do not give rise to a compensable taking	Court held no jurisdiction: Straw failed to allege challenged actions were authorized; dismissal affirmed
Whether the Claims Court may review actions of other Article III courts or grant relief for SBA claims without exhaustion	Straw sought review/compensation for actions by other federal courts and SBA denial	Government argued Claims Court lacks power to review other Article III courts and plaintiff had not exhausted administrative remedies re: SBA	Court held Claims Court cannot review Article III courts and SBA claims require exhaustion; alternative bases for dismissal upheld
Whether denial of IFP was improper	Straw argued prior IFP grants and unchanged finances meant IFP should be allowed; court had to find the complaint frivolous before denying IFP	Government argued court may deny IFP based on history of frivolous and abusive filings; court need not limit inquiry to current finances	Court held denial of IFP was not an abuse of discretion given Straw's record of frivolous filings and the merits of the complaint
Whether the Anti‑Filing Order and judge removal were improper	Straw contended the Anti‑Filing Order and judge's refusal to recuse were unlawful and biased	Government defended Anti‑Filing Order as justified by repetitive, frivolous litigation; judge's appointment source irrelevant to recusal	Court held Anti‑Filing Order and judge's actions were not an abuse of discretion; recusal request denied

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (Tucker Act is jurisdictional and does not create substantive money‑mandating right)
Del‑Rio Drilling Programs v. United States, 146 F.3d 1358 (takings require authorized government action; ultra vires acts not compensable)
Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (plaintiff must identify separate source of substantive law creating right to money damages)
McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (plaintiff must plead facts essential to show jurisdiction)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (subject‑matter jurisdiction is threshold issue)
Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (courts need not accept legal conclusions dressed as factual allegations)
JCM, Ltd. v. United States, 210 F.3d 1357 (administrative exhaustion required for certain claims against federal agencies)
Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (courts have inherent power to sanction and limit abusive filings)
Martin v. D.C. Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (IFP may be denied based on history of frivolous filings)
Fourstar v. United States, 950 F.3d 856 (denial of IFP reviewed for abuse of discretion)