Storey v. United States — Claims over unprocessed “form bonds” dismissed

Case
Luke C. Storey v. United States
Court
U.S. Court of Federal Claims
Judge
Armando O. Bonilla (Joseph R. Biden Jr., 2022)
Date Decided
September 11, 2026
Docket No.
25-1898C
Topics
Federal Claims Court; subject-matter jurisdiction; contract claims; pro se litigation
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Pro se plaintiff Luke C. Storey alleged that federal judges, a district-court clerk, Justice Department personnel, and an IRS agent failed to process United States General Services Administration “Form Bonds” that he had tendered. He characterized that failure as unfair and deceptive trade practices, civil nonfeasance, and a breach of an alleged contract with the Treasury Department.

Storey sought processing of the bonds, discharge of asserted commercial-paper and tax liabilities, an accounting, IRS documents, monetary payment, and probation for certain defendants. The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; Storey cross-moved for summary judgment.

The Court’s Holding

Judge Bonilla granted the government’s motion and dismissed the complaint. The Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction over claims against individual federal officials and over challenges to actions by federal district-court judges and clerks. It also lacked jurisdiction over Storey’s unfair-and-deceptive-trade-practices claim because that claim sounded in tort.

The court construed Storey’s civil-nonfeasance allegation as a contract theory but held that he did not plausibly allege a contract with the United States. His affidavit and related documents bore only his signature, and the government’s failure to respond to his unilateral demand did not establish mutual assent, consideration, or acceptance by an authorized government official. Storey’s summary-judgment motion was dismissed as moot.

Key Takeaways

  • The Court of Federal Claims cannot hear claims against individual government officials or review federal district-court proceedings.
  • Tort claims, including unfair and deceptive trade practices claims, fall outside the court’s Tucker Act jurisdiction.
  • Government silence in response to a privately drafted demand does not create an enforceable contract with the United States.

Why It Matters

The decision reinforces the jurisdictional limits of the Court of Federal Claims and the strict requirements for asserting a contract claim against the federal government. A claimant must allege an actual agreement, including assent and action by a government representative authorized to bind the United States; unilateral documents and deemed-acceptance provisions are insufficient.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top