Angel v. United States

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

JOSHUA J. ANGEL,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 25-cv-2040

(Filed: April 23, 2026)

THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

Joshua J. Angel, New York, NY, pro se.

Mariana Teresa Acevedo, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC,

for Defendant. With whom on the briefs were Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General,

Patricia M. McCarthy, Director, and Elizabeth M. Hosford, Assistant Director.

OPINION AND ORDER

Meriweather, Judge.

Plaintiff, Joshua J. Angel (“Mr. Angel”), representing himself and a putative class of

shareholders, seeks compensation from the United States for changes to how the Federal

National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage

Corporation (“Freddie Mac”) (collectively, “the Enterprises”) declare dividends following the

Enterprises’ 2008 financial collapse and subsequent conservatorship. See generally Compl.,

ECF No. 1. The United States filed a Motion to Dismiss Mr. Angel’s Complaint pursuant to

Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”), ECF No. 7

(hereinafter “Mot.”). Mr. Angel filed a Motion for an Enlargement of Time to respond to the

United States’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 8, which the Court granted. The Court then ordered

Mr. Angel to show cause (1) as to why his Complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction with prejudice and (2) as to why the Court should not enter an anti-filing

injunction against him. See Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 9. Mr. Angel filed a Second Motion

for an Enlargement of Time to respond to the United States’ Motion to Dismiss and responded to

the Court’s Order to Show Cause. See ECF No. 10 (“Resp. Show Cause”). Having reviewed the

parties’ filings1 and the relevant law, the Court GRANTS the United States’ Motion to Dismiss

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court does not reach the United States’ alternative

1

The following filings are relevant to this Opinion: Compl., ECF No. 1; Mot., ECF No.

7; and Resp. Show Cause, ECF No. 10. Throughout, page citations to documents in the record

refer to the document's original pagination, unless the page is designated with an asterisk (e.g.,

*1), in which case the reference is to the pagination assigned by PACER/ECF.

preclusion arguments.2 The Court DENIES Mr. Angel’s Second Motion for an Enlargement of

Time as MOOT.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Angel has previously unsuccessfully filed four complaints with similar theories of

recovery. First, he filed in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia, which dismissed

his complaint, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the

dismissal. See generally Angel v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., Case No. 1:18-cv-01142, 2019

WL 1060805 (D.D.C. Mar. 6, 2019) (“Angel I”), aff’d, 815 F. App’x 566, 569 (D.C. Cir. 2020).

He then filed a case in this Court but voluntarily dismissed his complaint. See generally Angel v.

United States, No. 20-cv-0737 (Fed. Cl. 2020) (“Angel II”). Third, he filed in this Court again,

and the Court dismissed his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See generally

Angel v. United States, 165 Fed. Cl. 453, 456–62 (2023) (“Angel III”). Fourth, Mr. Angel filed

another substantially similar complaint, which was again dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. See generally Angel v. United States, 172 Fed. Cl. 102 (2024) (“Angel IV”). The

Court also denied his Motion for Reconsideration. See generally Angel v. United States, No. 23-

cv-800, 2025 WL 1769635 (Fed. Cl. June 26, 2025). Mr. Angel then filed an untimely appeal,

which was dismissed by the Federal Circuit. See Angel v. United States, No. 23-cv-800, 2026

WL 181314, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 22, 2026). On December 5, 2025, Mr. Angel filed this fifth

Complaint again challenging the nonpayment of dividends on his stock in the Enterprises. See

generally Compl. 3

The factual and legal history relevant to this case is recounted at length in previous

decisions. See Angel III, 165 Fed. Cl. at 456–62; Angel IV, 172 Fed. Cl. at 109–13. Briefly,

because of the 2008 financial crisis, the Enterprises suffered great financial losses. Angel IV, 172

Fed. Cl. at 109. To ensure the Enterprises stayed afloat, Congress enacted the Housing and

Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (“HERA”). See id. HERA also allowed the Federal Housing

Finance Agency (“FHFA”) to become the Enterprises’ conservator. See id. The FHFA Director

negotiated preferred stock purchase agreements (“SPAs”) with the United States Department of

Treasury (“Treasury”). See id. Later, the SPAs were amended (by the “Third Amendment”),

implementing a net worth sweep so that the Enterprises had to make quarterly payments

2

Because res judicata and collateral estoppel are affirmative defenses, courts generally

analyze preclusion under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim rather than as a jurisdictional

bar under Rule 12(b)(1). See Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 907 (2008). Since the Court

resolves this case on “jurisdictional grounds,” it does not need to reach the alternative

“preclusion grounds.” Milgroom v. United States, 651 F. App’x 1001, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

3

Although Mr. Angel is representing himself, he is a member of this Court’s bar. Thus,

the Court declines to read Mr. Angel’s filings under the more liberal standards traditionally

afforded to pro se litigants, as it has done previously. Cf. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94

(2007) (noting pro se pleadings should “be liberally construed”) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429

U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). See Angel, 2025 WL 1769635, at *1 (declining to apply the more liberal

standard to Mr. Angel’s filings for the same reason).

2

amounting to their net worth, minus a small amount, to the Treasury. See id. This left no value

that could be distributed to Junior Preferred Shareholders, like Mr. Angel. See id.

In his present Complaint,4 just like in his previous ones, Mr. Angel alleges that the United

States has committed quarterly breaches of a contract for dividend rights with him and the

Enterprises’ other shareholders, has committed “illegal exaction” and “illegal extraction,” and

that the FHFA, as conservator of the Enterprises, breached its fiduciary duty to the shareholders

when conducting the net worth sweep. See Compl. ¶ 77–96; see also Angel IV, 172 Fed. Cl. at

112. Mr. Angel also seeks declaratory judgment that his dividend rights be retroactively restored

under bankruptcy law. Compl. ¶ 96. Mr. Angel’s only factual additions to his newest Complaint

compared to his previous filings are references to President Trump’s statements about potentially

taking the Enterprises public and maintaining the Government’s implicit guarantees and a

statement by FHFA Director William Pulte about the Enterprises’ potential forthcoming initial

public offering. See id. ¶¶ 31–45. President Trump’s statements were made prior to Angel IV’s

dismissal and Director Pulte’s were made afterwards. See id. Mr. Angel’s newest Complaint

also makes claims for different damages for the same alleged wrongdoing as his previous

complaints. Compare id. ¶ 13 (claiming a $26 billion loss of Junior Preferred Shareholders from

the Net Worth Sweep), ¶ 56 (asserting that his claims in this case are worth more than $60

billion), with Compl., Angel III, 172 Fed. Cl. 102, at ¶ 13 (claiming $22 billion for the same

conduct).

The United States moves to dismiss Mr. Angel’s Complaint for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction and, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,

arguing that each of Mr. Angel’s claims is precluded by this Court’s prior dismissal. Mot. at 11–

16. In his response to this Court’s Order to Show Cause, Mr. Angel argues his Complaint is not

“‘...almost identical to his previous complaints;’ ‘repeated’ and ‘frivolous,’” but rather is

“unique.” Resp. Show Cause at 3. Specifically, Mr. Angel claims this Court has not “considered

whether the Government’s post-Third Amendment actions and inactions breached the

Government’s Implicit Guaranty.” Id. Mr. Angel does not provide any case law to support his

arguments.

4

As this case is at the motion-to-dismiss stage, this Opinion assumes the truth of the

factual allegations in the Complaint. See General Mills Inc. v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 487

F.3d 1368, 1371 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

3

DISCUSSION

I. The Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Mr. Angel’s Claims.

The United States argues that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Mr.

Angel’s Complaint. Mot. at 1. The Court agrees. Under the Tucker Act, claims in this Court are

subject to a six-year statute of limitations period. 28 U.S.C. § 2501; see also John R. Sand &

Gravel Co. v. United States, 457 F.3d 1345, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2006), aff’d, 552 U.S. 130, 139

(2008). If a plaintiff fails to file before the period ends, the Court lacks jurisdiction. John R.

Sand & Gravel Co., 457 F.3d at 1346, 1354. “A claim first accrues within the meaning of the

statute of limitations ‘when all the events have occurred which fix the liability of the

Government and entitle the claimant to institute an action.’” Brown Park Est.-Fairfield Dev. Co.

v. United States, 127 F.3d 1449, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting Brighton Vill. Assocs. v. United

States, 52 F.3d 1056, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). Here, all of Mr. Angel’s claims, including his

claims about “implicit guarantees,” relate back to the net worth sweep that occurred in 2013. See

Compl. ¶ 77–96. In Fairholme Funds, the Federal Circuit ruled that once the net worth sweep

was instituted in early 2013, no residual value could be distributed to shareholders. Fairholme

Funds v. United States, 26 F.4th 1274, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (finding that shareholder claims

about the net worth sweep, like Mr. Angel’s, cannot be brought in this Court). Thus, Mr.

Angel’s claims concerning the net worth sweep accrued in early 2013 at the latest. See Angel IV,

172 Fed. Cl. at 116, 121. And Mr. Angel’s claims are not subject to the continuing claim

doctrine because the net worth sweep was “a single distinct event” that had continuing effects in

subsequent years. Brown Park Est.-Fairfield Dev. Co., 127 F.3d at 1456. Mr. Angel attempts to

circumvent the Court’s six-year statute of limitations by asserting his claims started accruing in

2019. See Compl. ¶ 87. But Mr. Angel’s attempt at artful pleading and his citations to

speculative statements by President Trump and Director Pulte are futile; the net worth sweep

occurred in early 2013, see Fairholme Funds, 26 F.4th at 1282, and the statute of limitations

expired in 2019. Mr. Angel has not alleged sufficient facts to establish the Court’s jurisdiction

because he has not demonstrated that any of his claims accrued within six years of when he filed

the Complaint. See John R. Sand & Gravel Co., 457 F.3d at 1354.

Further, Mr. Angel seeks declaratory judgment that dividend rights be retroactively

restored at the end of the Enterprises’ conservatorships and makes other claims under bankruptcy

law. See Compl. ¶ 96. However, this Court does not have jurisdiction to provide general

declaratory relief that is not incidental to a monetary award. See National Air Traffic Controllers

Ass’n v. United States, 160 F.3d 714, 716 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Moreover, district courts have

original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases arising under the bankruptcy code. See Blodgett v.

United States, 146 Fed. Cl. 104, 108 (2018). Thus, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction

over these claims.

In sum, the Court must dismiss Mr. Angel’s Complaint for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. See RCFC 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-

matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).

4

II. Dismissal With Prejudice is Warranted.

Mr. Angel has enjoyed several chances to have his day in this Court, yet he has not cured

the jurisdictional deficiencies in his Complaint. When a plaintiff has “already had a chance to

cure [a] defect and failed,” dismissal with prejudice is warranted. See Sicom Sys, Ltd. v. Agilent

Tech., Inc., 427 F.3d 971, 980 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Mr. Angel’s slight alterations to his Complaint

compared to his prior filings do not even attempt to cure the jurisdictional timeliness defects that

this Court discussed at length when dismissing his prior suits, including his claims about

“implicit guarantees.” Angel IV, 172 Fed. Cl. at 116, 118, 119. Rather, Mr. Angel merely

attempts to nitpick the Court’s language in the prior dismissals. See Resp. Show Cause at 3

(taking issue with this Court’s use of the terms “implausible” and “implausibility” but failing to

address any of the reasons this Court has repeatedly determined it lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over Mr. Angel’s claims). Contrary to Mr. Angel’s allegation that this Court has not

considered his claims about the United States’ “implicit guarantees,” see id., this Court

previously thoroughly considered and properly dismissed all his claims, including his claims

about “implicit guarantees,” for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Angel IV, 172 Fed. Cl. at

116, 121, 124, 134, 136. The Court does so again here. Therefore, dismissal with prejudice is

appropriate.

III. An Anti-Filing Injunction Against Mr. Angel is Warranted.

“[E]ngag[ing] in repeated and frivolous lawsuits” is grounds for an anti-filing injunction.

See O’Diah v. United States, 722 F. App’x 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Bergman v. Dep’t

of Commerce, 3 F.3d 432, 435 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). The Court provided Mr. Angel an opportunity

to explain why an anti-filing injunction was not appropriate despite his numerous repeated filings

concerning the same underlying facts after having his previous cases dismissed for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction. See Order to Show Cause; see also Allen v. United States, 88 F.4th

983, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (noting the Court must provide a litigant “notice that [an anti-filing

injunction] is being considered and an opportunity to be heard on the question of whether it

should be imposed”). Mr. Angel failed to provide any legal authority or case law to support his

argument that he has not filed repeated, frivolous claims before this Court and that an anti-filing

injunction would be improper. See generally Resp. Show Cause. As noted above, Mr. Angel’s

claims have been thoroughly addressed by this Court on previous occasions. Dissatisfied, Mr.

Angel has attempted to repeatedly relitigate a settled outcome and has burdened this Court’s

resources. The Court finds that Mr. Angel’s continued filings violate RCFC 11(b) and concludes

that anti-filing sanctions are appropriate under RCFC 11(c). See O’Diah, 722 F. App’x at 1004.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS the United States’ Motion to

Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 7. The Court does not reach the United

States’ alternative argument that Mr. Angel fails to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted. Mr. Angel’s Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall

enter JUDGMENT accordingly.

Additionally, the Clerk of Court is ORDERED to immediately ENJOIN Mr. Angel from

5

filing any new documents with the Court without first obtaining leave from the Chief Judge.

Any motion for leave to file must include as an attachment a full complaint that meets all the

requirements of RCFC 8, including an explanation on why the complaint is timely and properly

before this Court and unrelated to any prior litigation Mr. Angel has pursued. If the Court grants

a motion for leave to file, Mr. Angel will be required to pay in full the Court’s filing fee to

proceed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ROBIN M. MERIWEATHER

Judge

6