Brown v. United States

0R$$[ruAt

l|ntbt @nite! $ltutts @ourt of fe[rrs[ @luims

No. 15-1579 C

(Filed January 8, 2016)

UNPUBLISHED

FILED

JAN - I 2016

,k,k,f {< * *,k *'k * !k'k * * U,S. COURT OF

* FEDERAL CLAIMS

SHLN{TAY ANTONIO BROWN

AND WILLIE JESS LPSCOMB. *

Pro Se Plaintffi, Pro Se Complaint; No Claims

within This court's

Jurisdiction.

,r

THE UNITED STATES, t

Defendant.

t<r<{<:1.+:l**t<,k* ,1. ,k ,t ,F ,k :!

OPINION

The court has before it plaintiffs' pro se complaint filed December 28,2015.

Because this court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims, their suit must be

dismissed pursuant to Rule l2(hX3) of the Rules of the United States Court of

Federal Claims (RCFC). The reasons for this sua sponte dismissal are set forth

below.

BACKGROI]I{D'

The complaint filed by Mr. Brown and Mr. Lipscomb is not easy to

decipher. Although the general introduction to the complaint succinctly states that

plaintiffs seek redress for "violation of [their] constitutional rights under the 14th

r/ The facts recited here are drawn from the complaint. The court makes no findings of

lact in this opinion.

Amendment to the United States Constitution," Compl. at l, the remainder of the

complaint presents an expansive set of factual allegations, seven separate counts, a

request for several types ofrelief, and eight attachments.2 The court has examined

the complaint thoroughly in an attempt to discern the true nature of plaintiffs'

claims. The court provides here a summary of the topics presented in the

complaint. Most of these topics appear to address the particular circumstances of

Mr. Brown, although some of these topics appear to address the circumstances of

both Mr. Brown and Mr. Lioscomb.

Mr. Brown and Mr. Lipscomb are brothers, and Mr. Brown is the legal

guardian of Mr. Lipscomb due to the latter's mental retardation. Compl. at 9.

Difficulties in their living situation appear to be related to unemployment, loss of

housing and the denial ofvarious federal benefits. See id. at I ("This action seeks

just compensation from the United States for property ([]Jobs, Housing and Social

Security Benefits SSVSSDI) taken from the Plaintiff . . . ."). There are also

numerous references to the negative outcomes ofprevious litigation before federal

courts. Because plaintiffs in this lawsuit may seek to collaterally attack the

judgments of other federal courts, the court briefly reviews some of the litigation

referenced in the complaint.

In early 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

rejected an appeal brought by Mr. Brown regarding the "dismissal of his federal

civil-rights lawsuit." Brown v. Charles T. Ryan, Ltd.,596 F. App'x 504,504 (7rh

Cir. 2015). One of the defendants named in the suit was the "'Federal Reserve

System."' Id. The lawsuit brought by Mr. Brown alleged various constitutional

rights violations and ADA violations related to a bankruptcy proceeding and the

brothers' eviction from a condominium.3 Id. The district court dismissed the suit

for lack ofjurisdiction and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

The March 12,2015 decision of the Seventh Circuit is attached to plaintiffs'

complaint. Compl. Att. A-1. Bankruptcy proceedings are discussed at length in

2/ The documents attached to the complaint are divided into the following discrete

attachments: Attachments A-1,A-2,B-1,B-2,C-1,D-1,D-2,andAGroup. The court has

supplied pagination to these documents.

3/ TheAmericanswithDisabilitiesActof 1990,42U.S.C.$ 12101 etseq. (2012),is

rel'erred to in this ooinion as the ADA.

the complaint.o Id. at2-4, Att. B-2. Loss of housing is also referenced in the

of

complaint. Id. at 1,5. In addition, the complaint repeatedly invokes the rights

personslivingwithdisabilities. Id.\nn,33-34,36-37,40,46-47,54,67-69,73,

75-76,78. Thus, it would appear that at least some of the rights violations alleged

in the complaint are related to bankruptcy proceedings, particularly in the actions

of bankruptcy trustees, and others are related to the brothers' loss of housing, an

occurrence which is alleged to implicate the Federal Reserve System.

The complaint also contains a lengthy discussion of criminal proceedings.

Compi. at 5-6. The underlying charge against Mr. Brown was "making false

statements under penalty of perjury in a bankruptcy case." United States v. Brown,

No. 1,4-2524,2015 WL 7292770, at * I (7th Cir. Nov. 19,2015). Mr. Brown pled

guilty but later asserted that his right to a speedy trial had been violated. Id. The

Seventh Circuit disagreed and dismissed his appeal. Id. at*3.

The November 19, 2015 decision of the Seventh Circuit is attached to

piaintiffs' complaint. Compl. Att. C-l at 5-9. Mr. Brown's right to a speedy trial,

and allegations of misconduct by the United States Department of Justice, are

referenced in plaintiffs' complaint. Id. at5-6. Thus, another set ofplaintiffs'

claims are focused on violations of Mr. Brown's rights in criminal proceedings.

Finally, the United States District Court for the Northem District of Illinois

recently dismissed Mr. Brown's suit against the director of the Social Security

Administration (SSA). Brown v. Colvin, No. 15-C-1313 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 3,2015)

(unpublished order). The court noted that the SSA had denied Mr. Brown

disability insurance benefits (SSDD and supplemental security income (SSD. 1d

at 1. Mr. Brown apparently failed to file a timely appeal of the final decision of an

administrative law judge who considered Mr. Brown's application for

SSA-administered benefits. Id. at l-2. The district court therefore dismissed Mr.

Brown's suit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and also denied his

o/ There may also be an employment-related claim in the complaint's discussion of

bankruptcy proceedings. See Compl. 11 8 ("Plaintiffhas been off work since September 29,2011

without pay and work."); fl 9 ("This action by the chapter 7 trustee was done to sabotage[] the

employee's benefits and investments."); tT 10 ("[The bankruptcy trustee] place[d] the Plaintiffin

a position that he does not believe was appropriate because it lorced him to work outside his

union restriction hours per week . . . ."). Any claims against bankruptcy trustees referenced in

the complaint will be discussed in the "Tort Claims" section of this opinion, infra.

motion for reconsideration of that dismissal. 1d

The December 3.2015 decision of the district court is attached to the

complaint. Compl. Att. D-2. That decision, and Mr. Brown's efforts to obtain

judicial review of the actions of the Social Security Administration, are discussed

in the complaint. Id. at 6-7. Plaintiffs have also attached a number of documents

which illustrate Mr. Brown's interactions with the SSA. Compl. Att. A Group. It

is clear from these documents that Mr. Brown has long contended that his

constitutional rights were violated when the SSA denied him SSDI and SSI

benefits. 1d. Thus, the complaint appears to include claims that plaintiffs'

constitutional rights were violated by the SSA.

DISCUSSION

Pro Se Litigants

The court acknowledges that Mr. Brown and Mr. Lipscomb are proceeding

pro se and are "not expected to frame issues with the precision of a common law

pleading." Roche v. U.S. Postal Serv.,828 F.2d 1555, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Pro

se plaintiffs are entitled to a liberal construction of their pleadings. See Haines v.

Kerner,404 U.S. 519,520 (1972) (requiring that allegations contained inapro se

complaint be held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by

lawyers"). Accordingly, the court has examined the complaint thoroughly and has

attempted to discern all of piaintiffs' claims and legal arguments.

II. Jurisdiction

In order to determine its jurisdiction over plaintiffs' suit, this court must

presume all factual allegations in the complaint to be true and construe all

reasonableinferencesinfavorofplaintiffs. Scheuerv.Rhodes,416U.S.232,236

(1974), abrogated on other grounds by Harlow v. Fitzgerald,45T U.S. 800

( 1 982); Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv. , 846 F .2d 7 46, 7 47 (Fed. Cir.

1988). However, plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing subject matter

jurisdiction, Alder Terrace, Inc. v. United States,l6l F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir.

1998) (citing McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. of lnd.,298 U.S. 178, 189

(1936)), and must do so by a preponderance ofthe evidence, Reynolds,846F.2dat

748 (citations omitted). If subject matter jurisdiction is found to be lacking, this

court must dismiss the action. RCFC 12(hX3).

The Tucker Act delineates this court's jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. $ 1491

(201.2). That statute "confers jurisdiction upon the Court of Federal Claims over

the specified categories of actions brought against the United States." Fisher v.

United States, 402 F.3d 1167 , ll72 (Fed' Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations omitted).

These include money damages claims against the federal govemment founded

upon the Constitution, an act of Congress, a regulation promulgated by an

executive department, any express or implied contract with the United States, or

any claim for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort. Id.

(citing 28 U.S.C. $ 1ae1(a)(1)).

The Tucker Act concurrently "waives the Govemment's sovereign

immunity for those actions." Id. The statute does not, however, create a

substantive cause of action or right to recover money damages in the Court of

Federal Claims. Id. "[Tlo come within the jurisdictional reach and the waiver of

the Tucker Act, a plaintiff must identiff a separate source of substantive law that

creates the right to money damages." Id.

In other words, the source underlying the cause of action must be

money-mandating, in that it "'can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation

by the Federal Govemment.'" United States v. Testan, 424 U.5.392,400 (1976)

(quoting EastportS.S.Corp.v.UnitedStates,3T2F.2d 1002, 1009 (Ct.Cl. 1967)

and citing Mosca v. United States, 417 F.2d 1382, 1386 (Ct. Cl. 1969)). If the

provision relied upon is found to be money-mandating, the plaintiff need not rely

upon a waiver of sovereign immunity beyond the Tucker Act. Huston v. United

States , 956 F .2d 259,26 I (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing United States v. Mitchell, 463

U.S. 206, 2 I 8 ( 1983). If, on the other hand, no money-mandating source supports

the cause of action, this court lacks subject matter iurisdiction and must dismiss

the action.

III. Jurisdictional Analysis of the Complaint

A, DiscriminationClaims

Plaintiffs allege that their loss of income and housing, the violation of Mr.

Brown's right to a speedy trial, and the denial of Mr. Brown's application for

SSDI and SSI benefits were the result of discrimination on the part of various

federal agencies. See, e.g., Compl. flfl l8-19,24,27,33-34,36-37,46,62,68-69,

73. The primary types of discrimination alleged in the complaint are racial

discrimination and discrimination against persons with disabilities. 1d However,

it is well established that this court cannot entertain claims for civil rights

violations under various federal statutes such as 42 U.S.C. $$ 1981, 1983, 1985,

1986 (2012). E.g.,Jeffersonv. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 81, 89 (2012) (citing

cases). Nor can this court review allegations of discrimination against persons

with disabilities under the authority of the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,

29 U.S.C. Q0 704-794e (2012). Searles v. United States, 88 Fed. Cl. 801, 805

(2009). Because this court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs' discrimination

claims, those claims must be dismissed.s

B. Tort Claims

The complaint identifies a number of federal agencies, as well as the

"Federal Reserve System," and accuses these agencies of wrongful conduct. See

Compl. at 1 (alleging that federal agencies such as the "United States fBankruptcy]

Trustee Program," the "Federal Reserve System[]," the "United States Social

Security Administration," and the "United States Department of Justice" are

responsible for harming plaintiffs); g 9 (alleging that a bankruptcy trustee "failed

to adhere to [his] statutory . . . duties"); tl 17 (alleging that the Federal Reserve

System "faiied to adhere to [its] statutory . . . duties"); tl 21 (alleging that the

Department of Justice "failed to adhere to [its] statutory . . . duties"); 'tf 23

(alleging that the United States Public Defender Office was negligent); !f 64

(alleging generally that the United States is liable for the intentional infliction of

'/ The complaint contains no specific references to passages of the United States

Constitution in suppo( ofthe violations of "constitutional rights" alleged in the complaint, other

than to the Fourteenth Amendment. Compl. at 1. The court believes that plaintiffs intended to

invoke the takings clause ofthe Fifth Amendment, rather than the Fourteenth Amendment, a

topic which is discussed infra. Even ifplaintiffs had meant to invoke the protections ofthe

Fourteenth Amendment, those constitutional guarantees are not considered money-mandating

against the United States so as to confer jurisdiction on this court. See, e.g.,Fryv. United States,

72Fed.Cl.500,508 (2006). As for plaintiffs' request for ajury trial under the Seventh

Amendment, Compl. at I 5- I 6, this right has been held to be inapplicable in the Court of Federal

Claims. E g, Webster v. Unitecl States,74 Fed. Cl. 439,444 (2006) (citing United States v.

Sherwood, 3 12 U.S. 584, 587 (i941).

emotional distress upon plaintiffs). These allegations ofwrongdoing and

negligence are examples oftort claims. This court, however, cannot consider tort

claims against federal agencies. .E.g., Brown v. United States,105 F.3d 621,623

(Fed. Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). For this reason, plaintiffs' tort claims against

federal agencies must be dismissed for lack of iurisdiction.

C. Miscellaneous Statutory Claims

Plaintiffs cite to numerous federal statutes in addition to the ones discussed

supra. The subject matter of these statutes varies and includes age discrimination,

bankruptcy, access to credit, civil rights, homelessness, fair housing, subsidized

housing,andtherighttoaspeedytrial. Compl.tTflT-15,21,23,30,33-36,40,46,

62,69,71,75-79. None of these statutes is money-mandating so as to support a

claim within this court's jurisdiction. As discussed previously, the court cannot

entertain such claims where no jurisdictional basis lies for the action. The court

therefore must dismiss any and all claims based on the numerous federal statutes

cited in plaintiffs' complaint.

D. No Takings Claim

The court also considers whether the complaint contains a takings claim.

The general introduction to the complaint contains language that seemingly

attemDts to invoke the constitutional basis for a takinss claim:

This action seeks just compensation from the United

States for property ([]Jobs, Housing and Social Security

Benefits SSVSSDI) taken from Plaintifi [by] the United

States, through its agencies . . . .

Compl. at l. The court cannot construe the factual allegations of the complaint,

however, to present a non-frivolous allegation ofa taking of property for the use

of the govemment. Cf Jan's Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin.,525

F.3d 1299,1309 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (to present a takings claim, the complaint must

contain "a nonfrivolous allegation that [the plaintiffJ is within the class of

plaintiffs entitled to recover [from the United States] under [a] money-mandating

source" of law).

Instead, plaintiffs allege, repeatedly, that federal agencies have acted

arbitrarily and capriciously toward them in violation of the Administrative

Procedures Act (APA). Compl. 'l|fl 7-8, 12, 14-15,17,25. Plaintiffs cannot

convert an APA claim into a takings claim by characterizing these administrative

actions as the taking of plaintiffs' property. See Katz v. Cisneros, 16 F .3d 1204,

1207 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ("Regardless ofthe characterization ofthe case ascribed by

[a plaintiffl in its complaint, we look to the true nature of the action in determining

the existence or not of jurisdiction.") (citations omitted). Here, plaintiffs have not

identified a specific propefty right that was taken from them by the United States

for public use.u In contrast, they have named a number of federal agencies and

have found fault with the decisions or actions taken by those agencies. The

gravamen of plaintiffs' complaint is not a takings claim but an APA claim, or,

perhaps, multiple APA claims. Because this court does not possess jurisdiction

over APA claims, the complaint must be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction.

Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295,1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (en banc) (citing

Murphy v. united states, 993 F.2d, 87 l, 87 4 (Fed. Cir. I 993).

E. Collateral Attack on the Judgments of Federal Courts Improper

Plaintiffs' complaint nowhere specifically states that Mr. Brown and Mr.

Lipscomb seek review of the decisions of the Seventh Circuit or of the district

court. To the extent, however, that the complaint implies that these federal courts

erred in denying plaintiffs relief, this court is powerless to reverse or alter the

outcome of those lawsuits. This court does not possess jurisdiction to review

decisionsofotherfederalcourts. See,e.g.,Joshuav.UnitedStates,, 17F.3d378,

380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (stating that "the Court of Federal Claims does not have

iurisdiction to review the decisions of district courts"); Brownv. United States,88

6/ The term "property" has a specific definition for the purposes of the takings clause of

the Fifth Amendm ent. See, e.g., Zucker v. United States,758 F.2d 637,640 (Fed. Cir. 1985)

(holding that expectations regarding employment-related retirement benefits are not "property"

for the purposes of the takings clause); see also Addams-More v. United States,296 F . App'x 45,

47-48 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating that the denial ofSocial Security benefits does not give rise to a

takings claim under the Fifth Amendment (citing Marcus v. United States,909 F.2d 1470, 1471

(Fed. Cir. 1990)));Landersv. UnitedStates,39 Fed. CI.297,301 (1997) (dismissing a claim

brought before this court related to an eviction because such a claim was not a takings claim but

a claim that could only proceed in state court). The types of govemmental action described in the

complaint are not deprivations of "property" under Fifth Amendment jurisprudence.

Fed. Cl. 795,799 n.4 (2009) (stating that "this court is without authority to revrew

decisions of other federal courts") (citations omitted). To the extent that plaintiffs'

suit in this couft attempts to collaterally attack other federal court decisions, any

such claim must be dismissed for lack of iurisdiction.

F. Injunctive Relief

Finally, the court notes that plaintiffs seek injunctive relief from this court.

Compl. at 15. This court does not possess equitable powers that could assist

plaintiffs. E.g.,Brown, 105 F.3d at624 (citingUnited States v. King,395 U.S. l,

2-3 (1969)). For this reason, the courl must also dismiss the request for injunctive

relief presented in plaintiffs' complaint.

CONCLUSION

The court has considered all ofthe claims and sources of law cited in the

complaint and construed them in a light most favorable to Mr. Brown and Mr.

Lipscomb. This court lacks jurisdiction over all of plaintiffs' claims.T Inasmuch

as the court has no power to expand its jurisdiction to address plaintiffs' legal

claims, it would be futile for them to return to this court for a renewed

consideration ofplaintiffs' requests for damages and other relief. Should plaintiffs

choose to appeal the dismissal of their suit, a notice of appeal must be filed

pursuant to RCFC 58.1.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk's office is directed to

DISMISS the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, without prejudice.

L

7/ Transfer of plaintiffs' complaint to another federal court would not be in the interest of

justice. The court sees no claim in the complaint that would proceed to a ruling on the merits.