Vincent v. United States, 17-969

Plaintiff Claude Phillip Vincent, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis for jurisdictional review, sued the United States seeking $350,000 for alleged misconduct by VA Regional Office (VARO) employees that delayed his July 2010 veterans benefit check.
Vincent's filings alleged tort, criminal (mail/wire fraud), civil-rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983), Rehabilitation Act discrimination, FTCA, and later characterized the claim as a military/veterans compensation pay dispute under 37 U.S.C. § 204 and 38 U.S.C. ch. 11.
The Government moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; Vincent filed a corrected response and a sur-reply attempting to reframe the claim as military/veterans pay or contract-based.
The court evaluated Tucker Act jurisdictional limits: the Court of Federal Claims can hear non-tort money-mandating claims grounded in federal law, but lacks jurisdiction over FTCA torts, §1983 civil-rights claims, criminal claims, Rehabilitation Act discrimination, and veterans benefits.
The court found no money-mandating statutory source supporting jurisdiction here, held the asserted theories fall outside this court’s jurisdiction, and concluded transfer to a district court would be futile due to FTCA timeliness issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CFC has jurisdiction over §1983 civil-rights claims against VARO employees	Vincent alleged civil-rights violations under 42 U.S.C. §1983	Government: §1983 claims are not within CFC jurisdiction	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether CFC may hear claims based on federal criminal statutes (mail/wire fraud)	Vincent alleged VARO employees committed mail/wire fraud	Government: criminal-law claims are not cognizable in CFC	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether Rehabilitation Act discrimination claims are within CFC jurisdiction	Vincent invoked Rehabilitation Act protections	Government: discrimination claims under that Act are not for CFC	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether FTCA/tort claims or veterans benefits/ military pay claims can be heard in CFC	Vincent asserted FTCA torts and later recharacterized as military/veterans pay or contract claim	Government: FTCA belongs in district court; veterans benefits and military pay claims are outside CFC; contract theory for military pay is not a basis for CFC jurisdiction	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; transfer futile due to FTCA statute-of-limitations timing

Roche v. U.S. Postal Serv., 828 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (pro se pleadings afforded liberal construction)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se complaints held to less stringent standards)
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (1974) (court presumes undisputed allegations true on jurisdictional review)
Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (Tucker Act jurisdiction requires money-mandating source)
United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976) (statute must be fairly interpreted as mandating compensation)
Schism v. United States, 316 F.3d 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (military pay and veterans benefits not governed by contract law for jurisdictional purposes)
Katz v. Cisneros, 16 F.3d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (look to true nature of action to determine jurisdiction)
McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (1936) (plaintiff bears burden to establish subject-matter jurisdiction)