Trevino v. United States
557 F. App'x 995
Fed. Cir.2014Background
- Treviño filed a complaint in May 2013 on her behalf and as next friend for her brother, who is serving a life sentence for multiple sexual offenses.
- She alleges federal and other entities wrongfully incarcerate him, and that she and he are veterans with service-connected injuries and inadequate benefits.
- Treviño asserts jurisdiction under Tucker Act theories, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 1491, 38 U.S.C. §§ 5901, 7101, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plus purported civil and human rights and RICO claims.
- The Court of Federal Claims dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, ruling it cannot entertain claims against non-federal entities, veteran benefits claims, tort and § 1983 claims, RICO/constitutional claims, or equitable/injunctive/punitive relief.
- Treviño appealed the dismissal; the Federal Circuit affirmed, holding the Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction over all asserted claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Tucker Act jurisdiction extend to non-federal-party claims? | Treviño argues for jurisdiction over various non-federal claims. | United States contends only claims against the United States fall under the Tucker Act. | No jurisdiction for non-federal claims. |
| Are veteran-benefits claims within the Court of Federal Claims' scope? | Treviño seeks veterans benefits damages and administration relief. | United States contends VA-exhaustion/appeal rules apply before federal court. | Claims must be brought to VA and appealed to VA Court and then to this court. |
| Does the Court of Federal Claims have jurisdiction over tort and § 1983 claims? | Treviño asserts tort and civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. | United States argues lack of jurisdiction for these claims. | Court lacks jurisdiction over tort and § 1983 claims. |
| Does the Court have jurisdiction over RICO and constitutional claims? | Treviño raises RICO and constitutional claims (due process, equal protection, supremacy). | United States asserts Tucker Act does not cover these claims because they do not mandate payment of money. | No jurisdiction for RICO or non-monetary constitutional claims. |
| Can the Court grant injunctive relief or punitive damages? | Treviño seeks equitable relief and punitive damages. | United States contends such relief is unavailable under Tucker Act regime. | Injunctive relief and punitive damages are outside the Court's jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287 (2009) (Tucker Act jurisdiction limited to money damages under ways to compensate by the federal government)
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (1941) (jurisdictional limits of the Court of Federal Claims)
- Hufford v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 696 (2009) (lacks jurisdiction over RICO claims)
- United States v. Connolly, 716 F.2d 882 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (constitutional claims without money-mandating effect outside Tucker Act)
- Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over tort claims)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (pro se pleadings and pleading standards)
- Bradley v. Chiron Corp., 136 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (amendment futility standard for pro se plaintiffs)
- United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation, 131 S. Ct. 1723 (2011) (equitable relief not available in Tucker Act actions)