Theriot v. United States
17-180
| Fed. Cl. | May 10, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (Cheryl Theriot et al.) sued the United States seeking $350,000 for alleged breach of an "expressed and implied contract" by HUD to assist them in obtaining suitable housing.
- Plaintiffs relied on the Fair Housing Act and several other federal statutes as the basis for a money-mandating duty or contractual obligation.
- Plaintiffs previously brought a related suit alleging Fair Housing Act discrimination; that case was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The government moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
- The Court applied Tucker Act jurisdiction principles: the Tucker Act is jurisdictional and requires a separate, money-mandating source of substantive law or a valid contract with the government.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FHAct and cited statutes are money-mandating under the Tucker Act | Theriot: statutes (Fair Housing Act, HUD statutes, ADA, etc.) create government duty to assist and thus mandate money relief | Gov: cited statutes do not create a money-mandating right enforceable in the Court of Federal Claims | Held: Not money-mandating; no Tucker Act jurisdiction for these statutory claims |
| Whether plaintiffs stated an express or implied contract with the government | Theriot: statutes and HUD obligations amount to an express/implied contract to provide housing assistance | Gov: statutory provisions do not create contractual obligations; no elements of a binding contract alleged | Held: No valid contract alleged; plaintiffs failed to plead offer/acceptance, consideration, or authority to bind government |
| Whether Court of Federal Claims may grant equitable relief under cited statutes | Theriot: seeks relief based on statutory duties and past related case | Gov: statutes cited do not authorize equitable or monetary relief in this court | Held: Court lacks authority to grant equitable relief based on those statutory provisions |
| Whether plaintiff satisfied jurisdictional pleading burden as pro se litigants | Theriot: pro se submissions should be construed liberally | Gov: even with liberal construction, jurisdictional requirements must be met | Held: Pro se status does not excuse failure to plead a jurisdictional basis; jurisdiction not established |
Key Cases Cited
- Testan v. United States, 424 U.S. 392 (Tucker Act is jurisdictional and does not create money-mandating rights)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (separate source of substantive law required for money damages against the United States)
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir.) (requirement to identify a money-mandating source to invoke Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- La Van v. United States, 382 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir.) (elements required to establish a contract with the government)
- San Carlos Irrigation & Drainage Dist. v. United States, 877 F.2d 957 (Fed. Cir.) (elements of breach of contract claim)
- Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746 (Fed. Cir.) (plaintiff bears burden to establish jurisdiction)