Background
Arthur C. Bieganowski, a former pain-management physician, was convicted in the Western District of Texas of mail-fraud, conspiracy, and money-laundering offenses. His sentence included imprisonment, forfeiture of assets, and restitution. In 2025 and 2026, he challenged aspects of the restitution proceedings in the criminal case, but the district court denied relief, sanctioned him for frivolous filings, and closed the case.
Bieganowski then sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims, seeking hundreds of millions of dollars for the seizure and retention of his medical-practice assets. He relied principally on 18 U.S.C. § 3664, alleging deficiencies concerning victim-loss information, asset appraisals, and credits against restitution. The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Bieganowski moved for reconsideration under Rule 59.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Eleni M. Roumel denied reconsideration. Bieganowski did not establish newly discovered evidence, clear factual or legal error, manifest injustice, or other extraordinary circumstances sufficient to revisit the jurisdictional dismissal.
The court rejected his reliance on a government footnote suggesting that a claim concerning assets seized but neither forfeited nor applied to restitution might not require review of district-court actions. His complaint, the court held, tied the alleged wrongful retention to § 3664, a federal criminal statute over which the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction. To the extent his allegations challenged restitution calculations, presentence-report information, or credits, they would also require reviewing the Western District of Texas’s actions or inaction.
The court likewise rejected Bieganowski’s illegal-exaction theory. The Tucker Act alone does not supply jurisdiction, and § 3664 expressly creates no cause of action against the United States. His asserted takings theory also failed because property seized and retained under the government’s criminal police power is not a Fifth Amendment taking. Independently, all claims were untimely under the six-year jurisdictional limitations period in 28 U.S.C. § 2501.
Key Takeaways
- A Rule 59 reconsideration motion cannot be used to relitigate arguments already rejected.
- The Court of Federal Claims cannot adjudicate claims under the federal criminal code or review a district court’s criminal restitution proceedings.
- Section 3664(j)(2) concerns victim recoveries in later civil proceedings, not a general credit for seized property.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that labeling a challenge to criminal forfeiture or restitution as an illegal exaction does not create Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction. A plaintiff must identify a money-mandating source of law that provides a return-of-money remedy.
It also confirms that the six-year limitations period for Tucker Act claims is jurisdictional and cannot be equitably tolled. Continuing consequences of an old seizure, forfeiture, or restitution order do not themselves create a timely continuing claim.