Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

jurisdictiondamagesstatutemotionharassmentregulationmotion to dismiss

contracttortplaintiffdefendantjurisdictiondamagesmotionharassmentregulationliquidated damagesimplied contract

Related Cases

Ash v. United States, 170 Fed.Cl. 761

Facts

Davenell L. Ash, an African American small business owner, alleged that she was unjustly placed on the FBI's terrorist watchlist, which led to invasive surveillance and various forms of harassment. She claimed that this designation resulted in significant harm, including medical issues, public harm, and violations of her constitutional rights. Ash sought damages and requested the removal of her name from the watchlist, but her claims were based on a lack of jurisdiction as outlined in the Tucker Act.

Plaintiff alleges in her complaint: The police dept and FBI then secured a FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] agreement for 24/7, 365 days a year invasive electronic surveillance which forced her into a public harassment torture program hosting interactive audio, livestream viewing technology and electrical harassment being illegally placed in her home, vehicles and business for profit under color of law.

Issue

Did the Court of Federal Claims have subject matter jurisdiction to hear Davenell L. Ash's claims for unjust conviction and imprisonment, as well as her constitutional violations?

The Court of Federal Claims lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear claim for unjust conviction and imprisonment, and the Court of Federal Claims lacked subject matter jurisdiction under Tucker Act to hear claims for violation of Second, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Rule

The Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over claims against the United States only if they are founded on a money-mandating source of law, such as a statute or regulation that requires compensation from the federal government.

The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (2018), grants jurisdiction to this court as follows: The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether Ash's claims fell under the jurisdictional requirements of the Tucker Act. It determined that Ash had not satisfied the necessary prerequisites for her claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1495, as she failed to provide evidence of a reversed conviction or a pardon. Additionally, the court noted that her other claims did not arise from a money-mandating source, thus lacking jurisdiction.

Defendant argues that it is unclear what “conviction or imprisonment plaintiff is challenging,” and, furthermore, plaintiff fails to “allege that she was pardoned” or that she was “pardoned upon the stated ground of innocence and unjust conviction.”

Conclusion

The Court of Federal Claims granted the United States' motion to dismiss, concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Ash's claims.

Motion granted.

Who won?

United States

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Fulbright v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2023 WL 159780

Ex parte Kan-gi-shun-ca, 109 U.S. 556, 3 S.Ct. 396, 27 L.Ed. 1030

People v. Casassa, 49 N.Y.2d 668, 404 N.E.2d 1310, 427 N.Y.S.2d 769

United States v. Hartwell, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2022 WL 2161047

Holdridge v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2020 WL 6328776