Wright v. United States
701 F. App'x 967
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Franklin H. Wright filed two complaints in the Court of Federal Claims (one under his name, one under alias "Yutz McDougal") asserting claims labeled as breaches of contract against various federal entities and officials.
- First complaint sought injunctive relief: restoration of law-library access in San Francisco federal courthouses and requiring Justice John Paul Stevens to personally consider a certiorari-related motion. Wright disclaimed monetary relief.
- Second complaint targeted the Council of Economic Advisers, National Economic Council, and the Federal Reserve Bank, seeking declaratory/mandamus relief and compensation for time spent researching alleged economic mismanagement.
- The Claims Court consolidated the two cases (finding Wright and McDougal the same person) and dismissed both for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding none pleaded an actionable government contract or a money-mandating source of law.
- Wright appealed, arguing (1) the Claims Court should have applied California law to find contracts, (2) the Tucker Act does not require a money-mandating source for relief, (3) the court erred in dismissing under RCFC 12(b)(6), and (4) the court wrongly denied appointed counsel and should have remanded the second complaint.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting Wright’s arguments on contract formation, money-mandating source, Rule 12(b)(6) pleading failure, appointment of counsel, and remand request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California law should govern contract existence | Wright: state law would support existence of contracts and his pro se status merits consideration | Gov't: Claims Court properly applied federal contract standards; Wright’s facts don’t allege a contract | Affirmed: federal standards control and complaints do not allege a valid government contract |
| Whether a money‑mandating source is required for Tucker Act jurisdiction | Wright: Tucker Act/Claims Court can issue non‑monetary relief without a money‑mandating statute | Gov't: Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity only when a separate money‑mandating source creates entitlement to money damages | Affirmed: plaintiff must identify a separate money‑mandating source of law for Tucker Act jurisdiction |
| Whether complaints state a claim under RCFC 12(b)(6) | Wright: lower court lacked basis to find dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) | Gov't: even if jurisdiction existed, complaints fail to plead essential contract elements | Affirmed: alternative dismissal correct—complaints fail to allege basic contract elements |
| Whether court erred denying appointed counsel or remand | Wright: entitlement to counsel under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) and court should remand second complaint to GAO or DOJ | Gov't: appointment of counsel in civil cases is rare; no authority supports remand to GAO/DOJ | Affirmed: no right to appointed counsel and dismissal (not remand) was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir.) (Tucker Act requires separate money‑mandating source for money damages)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (U.S. 1983) (Tucker Act does not itself create substantive causes of action)
- Flexfab, L.L.C. v. United States, 424 F.3d 1254 (Fed. Cir.) (actual authority to bind the government relevant to contract formation)
- Lariscey v. United States, 861 F.2d 1267 (Fed. Cir.) (constitutional right to counsel in civil cases is narrowly circumscribed)
- Pitts v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir.) (civil cases generally do not implicate a constitutional right to counsel absent liberty interest)
- Zafer Taahhut Insaat Ve Ticaret, A.S. v. United States, 120 F. Cl. 604 (Ct. Cl.) (judicial‑economy considerations relevant to consolidation of cases)