Background
Pro se plaintiff Jaame Amun Re El alleged that officials at FCI Berlin unlawfully interfered with protected legal and special mail while the plaintiff was in federal custody. The complaint alleged delayed, mishandled, intercepted, obstructed, diverted, or otherwise interfered-with mail.
The plaintiff alleged that the interference obstructed access to courts, disrupted legal proceedings, delayed filings, and caused substantial injury. Seeking $10 million, the plaintiff invoked the special-mail regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 540.18, the First and Fifth Amendments, and alleged fraudulent mail interference.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Elaine D. Kaplan dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Under the Tucker Act, the Court of Federal Claims may hear claims against the United States only when a separate substantive source of law creates a right to money damages, and it does not have jurisdiction over claims sounding in tort.
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s tort claims and alleged First Amendment and Fifth Amendment due-process violations. It also held that the plaintiff identified no money-mandating statute supporting jurisdiction over the mail-fraud and mail-interference claims. The court granted the plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application for the purpose of dismissing the case.
Key Takeaways
- The Tucker Act does not itself create a right to damages; a plaintiff must identify a separate money-mandating source of law.
- The Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over tort claims and First Amendment and Fifth Amendment due-process claims.
- A pro se complaint is construed liberally, but the plaintiff still bears the burden to establish subject-matter jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the jurisdictional limits of the Court of Federal Claims in prisoner litigation. Allegations of interference with legal mail, even when framed as constitutional or regulatory violations and coupled with a damages request, cannot proceed there without a money-mandating basis for recovery.