Wells v. United States
134 Fed. Cl. 366
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Kerry S. Wells, pro se, filed a handwritten complaint on October 12, 2017, accusing his former patent attorney, Charles C. McCloskey, of stealing his design patent.
- Wells alleges he hired McCloskey in 2009, received a design patent in 2010 for a "Solar Power Address Sign," and was made to sign a "second power of attorney" that transferred control of the patent.
- Wells filed a grievance with the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel in February 2016 and claims the matter was not investigated because McCloskey sits on the relevant ethics committee.
- Wells says he is prevented from dealing with the U.S. Patent Examiner because he is listed only as the "inventor," not as the authorized/assigned patent holder.
- Wells asks the Court of Federal Claims for "justice" (monetary relief is not pleaded) and names McCloskey (a private individual) as the sole defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims has subject-matter jurisdiction over this dispute | Wells seeks relief for alleged theft of his patent and requests "justice" from this Court | (Implicit) The proper defendant is a private attorney, not the United States; no money-mandating statutory source identified | Dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction: plaintiff named a private party and failed to identify a money-mandating separate source of law |
| Whether naming a private defendant satisfies the Tucker Act's defendant requirement | Wells named McCloskey as sole defendant | Tucker Act permits only claims against the United States in this court | Dismissed: the court only has jurisdiction over claims against the United States |
| Whether the complaint identifies a money-mandating source that creates a right to monetary damages | Wells requested "justice" but did not cite any statute or regulation creating a right to damages | No money-mandating statute or separate source of law pleaded | Dismissed: plaintiff failed to identify the required separate, money-mandating source |
| Whether pro se status relaxes the jurisdictional pleading burden | Wells is pro se and submitted a handwritten complaint | Pro se plaintiffs are given leniency but still must prove jurisdiction by a preponderance | Court applied liberal construction but still required and found jurisdictional showing lacking |
Key Cases Cited
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (Tucker Act claims require a separate, money-mandating source of law)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983) (separate source is money-mandating if it can fairly be interpreted to require compensation)
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (1941) (Court of Federal Claims entertains claims only against the United States)
- Estes Express Lines v. United States, 739 F.3d 689 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (accept factual allegations as true and construe pro se pleadings liberally when assessing jurisdiction)
- Toohey v. United States, 105 Fed. Cl. 97 (2012) (court may raise subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte)