Background
Proceeding pro se, Luan P. Khuc sought $10 million based on an alleged award certificate he said he received through a Microsoft company contest. He asserted that the federal government or Department of the Treasury was holding the funds. His filings included materials relating to the purported award, government-grant webpages, social-media posts, and personal records.
In a supplemental pleading, Khuc said he was the victim of a scam and was entitled to relief from the Treasury Department because he is a U.S. citizen. The government moved to dismiss, arguing that the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over claims against nonfederal entities and that Khuc had identified no money-mandating source of law supporting damages against the United States.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Richard A. Hertling granted the government’s motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3).
The court held that Khuc’s filings alleged that IBM Microsoft, rather than the United States, awarded the claimed $10 million. His references to the Treasury Department did not plausibly allege federal involvement in the alleged award or unlawful federal retention of it. Separately, he did not identify any substantive source of law—much less one that mandates monetary compensation—that could bring his claim within the Tucker Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity.
Key Takeaways
- The Court of Federal Claims may hear Tucker Act claims only against the United States, not claims directed at private parties or other entities.
- Calling on a federal agency does not establish jurisdiction without facts plausibly connecting the United States to the alleged wrongdoing.
- A plaintiff seeking money from the United States must identify a separate money-mandating source of substantive law; the Tucker Act alone does not create that right.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates that liberal construction of pro se pleadings does not excuse jurisdictional defects. A claimant must connect the alleged injury to federal conduct and plead a valid money-mandating legal basis for recovery in the Court of Federal Claims.