Background
Rod Serp, proceeding without counsel, alleged that he worked as an undercover informant for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security between 2010 and 2017. He claimed federal agents promised to pay him but did not reimburse him for services performed in 2010 and 2011, and he sought $35,714.28.
Serp had brought substantially similar allegations in the Court of Federal Claims in 2024. That case was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because he had not pleaded a valid contract with the government. In this action, the government moved to dismiss as untimely and, alternatively, for failure to identify a contract and breached provision. Serp argued that a 2023 DHS administrative complaint and his 2024 court case tolled the limitations period.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Carolyn N. Lerner granted the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, holding that Serp’s Tucker Act claim was barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2501’s six-year statute of limitations. Accepting Serp’s allegations as true, the court concluded that he knew or should have known of the alleged nonpayment in 2011, when payment allegedly was due. The limitations period therefore expired in 2017.
The claim would remain untimely even if it accrued when Serp stopped working with ICE in 2017, the court held. Filing an administrative claim with DHS did not toll the Tucker Act limitations period, and the 2024 action did not preserve the claim because a dismissal without prejudice leaves the parties as though the suit had never been filed. The court granted Serp leave to proceed in forma pauperis, denied his sealing motion, and dismissed the case without prejudice.
Key Takeaways
- The Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over Tucker Act claims filed more than six years after accrual.
- Pursuing permissive administrative review does not toll the Tucker Act limitations period.
- A prior action dismissed without prejudice does not stop or preserve the running of the limitations period.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the jurisdictional force of Section 2501 in the Court of Federal Claims. Even a pro se plaintiff alleging an agreement with the government must establish timely filing, and later administrative efforts or an earlier unsuccessful federal suit generally cannot revive an expired Tucker Act claim.