Background
Maurice P. Fortune III, a Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro se, alleged that the Secretary of the Treasury breached a fiduciary duty involving a purported “private registered bond” valued at $100 million. His theory rested on assertions that the federal government created trusts tied to individuals’ registered births and that he was entitled to a bond associated with his birth record.
Fortune attached a document titled “PRIVATE REGISTERED BOND FOR INVESTMENT,” which cited UCC § 1-104 and Public Law 73-10 but identified “Could Be Anyone” and the “COULD BE ANYONE ESTATE/TRUST,” rather than Fortune, as the principal. Fortune sought possession or restitution of the purported bond as tangible personal property. He did not request payment of money equal to its stated value.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(h)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. It concluded that the claim was frivolous because the purported bond lacked any indication of legitimacy, did not identify Fortune as its owner, and supported a redemption theory associated with sovereign-citizen claims that courts have uniformly rejected as implausible and frivolous.
The court independently held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The Tucker Act generally authorizes the Court of Federal Claims to hear claims for presently due money damages against the United States, but Fortune requested only the return of alleged personal property. Because he never sought monetary damages or payment equal to the bond’s purported value, his requested relief fell outside the court’s limited jurisdiction.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied in forma pauperis status for appellate purposes.
Key Takeaways
- A purported financial instrument lacking any indication of legitimacy may support dismissal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
- Claims based on sovereign-citizen redemption theories do not establish a viable basis for relief in the Court of Federal Claims.
- The Court of Federal Claims generally cannot order the government to return personal property when the plaintiff seeks no presently due money damages.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes between seeking money damages and seeking possession of property. Even though the document stated a $100 million value, that amount did not create Tucker Act jurisdiction because Fortune requested only restitution of the purported bond itself.
The ruling also illustrates the court’s authority to screen a prisoner’s complaint, dismiss facially frivolous sovereign-citizen claims, and address subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte.