Background
Ruby Christine Kiesling, proceeding without counsel, alleged that the United States breached a contract involving the Defense Logistics Agency and Global Logistics Corporation. She sought $14 trillion in damages.
Kiesling asserted that the agreement concerned research and development of antibodies and pharmaceutical products to cure cancer, HIV, hepatitis C, COVID-19, and other diseases, as well as DNA sequencing and discovery of element 119. Her exhibits included a purported letter of intent promising, among other consideration, $1 trillion, a Ferrari, pardons, oil royalties, diplomatic immunity, aircraft, drones, and jetpacks.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Elaine D. Kaplan dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Although the Tucker Act permits contract claims against the United States, a plaintiff must present allegations sufficient to invoke that jurisdiction.
The court held that Kiesling’s asserted $14 trillion government contract was purely fanciful and did not clear even the low threshold required for jurisdictional allegations. The attached documents and messages did not substantiate the alleged agreement; instead, they further showed that the allegations were not grounded in reality. The court granted Kiesling leave to proceed in forma pauperis solely to dispose of the case.
Key Takeaways
- A government-contract allegation ordinarily supports Tucker Act jurisdiction, but frivolous or wholly insubstantial allegations do not.
- Pro se pleadings are construed liberally, but the plaintiff still bears the burden to establish jurisdiction.
- A dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction was without prejudice.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the narrow exception to the usual rule that an alleged contract with the federal government permits the Court of Federal Claims to determine the claim’s merits. Where the asserted agreement is facially fantastical and unsupported, the court may dismiss at the jurisdictional stage under RCFC 12(h)(3).