Sweezer v. United States
16-1393
| Fed. Cl. | May 31, 2017Background
- Pro se complaint filed Oct. 24, 2016 by Tarshika Sweezer on behalf of six persons (including minors) challenging a March 2016 Chicago Police search and the arrest/incarceration of John Sweezer; plaintiffs seek money damages and return of property.
- Plaintiffs previously filed a related pleading (Sweezer I) in June 2016, which the Court of Federal Claims returned for correction and later dismissed under RCFC 41(b) for failure to comply with an order.
- The Oct. 24 complaint asserts breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties (invoking the Indian Tucker Act), and civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and cites Tucker Act jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. §§ 1491, 1505).
- The government moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction) and 12(b)(6), arguing absence of a money‑mandating source or contract, no established Indian-fiduciary duty, and that civil rights/habeas claims fall outside this court’s jurisdiction; it also raised res judicata.
- The court found plaintiffs failed to identify any contract or money‑mandating statute, failed to plead a cognizable Indian‑trust claim, and lacked jurisdiction over § 1983, habeas, and constitutional claims, and therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- The clerk was ordered to enter judgment for the government and to bar future filings by these plaintiffs without Chief Judge approval.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tucker Act jurisdiction for breach of contract (28 U.S.C. § 1491) | Plaintiffs assert breach of contract/guardian/trustee duties tied to the search/arrest and seek money damages | No contract or money‑mandating source with the United States is alleged; no facts showing an authorized agent bound the U.S. | Dismissed — plaintiffs failed to identify any contract or money‑mandating source, so court lacked Tucker Act jurisdiction |
| Indian Tucker Act / fiduciary duty claims (28 U.S.C. § 1505) | Plaintiffs claim fiduciary/breach of trust duties (assert Cherokee descent / reservation) | Plaintiffs do not identify a substantive legal source imposing specific fiduciary duties that mandate compensation | Dismissed — allegations insufficient to invoke Indian Tucker Act jurisdiction |
| Civil rights claims (42 U.S.C. § 1983) and other constitutional claims | Plaintiffs allege Fourth/Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment violations and seek damages for search, seizure, and property confiscation | § 1983 and interrelated constitutional claims are within exclusive district court jurisdiction, not the Court of Federal Claims | Dismissed — court lacks jurisdiction over § 1983 and related constitutional claims |
| Habeas / challenge to incarceration | Mr. Sweezer contends his continued incarceration is unjust and seeks relief for detention | Habeas corpus petitions for state-court prisoners are within district courts (28 U.S.C. § 2254); CFC cannot grant habeas | Dismissed — court lacks authority to consider habeas or state-custody challenges |
Key Cases Cited
- Estes Express Lines v. United States, 739 F.3d 689 (Fed. Cir.) (standard for Rule 12(b)(1) factual treatment)
- Keener v. United States, 551 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir.) (plaintiff bears burden to establish jurisdiction)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S.) (jurisdiction is threshold; court must dismiss if lacking jurisdiction)
- Jan's Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. FAA, 525 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir.) (Tucker Act requires separate substantive source that mandates damages)
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir.) (same principle: Tucker Act does not create substantive cause of action)
- Trauma Serv. Group v. United States, 104 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir.) (contract claims require allegations showing an agreement with the United States or authorized agent)
- United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287 (U.S.) (Indian‑trust claims require a substantive source imposing fiduciary duties that mandate compensation)
- Hopi Tribe v. United States, 782 F.3d 662 (Fed. Cir.) (interpretation of Indian Tucker Act and fiduciary duty pleading requirements)
- Texas Peanut Farmers v. United States, 409 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir.) (CFC lacks jurisdiction where Congress granted exclusive jurisdiction to district courts)
- Ledford v. United States, 297 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir.) (Court of Federal Claims cannot grant habeas relief)
- Crocker v. United States, 125 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir.) (CFC lacks jurisdiction over due process or seizure claims under the Fifth Amendment)
- Smith v. United States, 709 F.3d 1114 (Fed. Cir.) (constitutional provisions that do not mandate payment do not provide Tucker Act causes of action)