Gray v. United States
- Summarized by David Treacy , U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Kentucky
- 9 months 1 week ago
- Case Type:
- Consumer
- Case Status:
- Affirmed
- Citation:
- 2023-1955 (Federal Circuit, Apr 05,2024) Not Published
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed an order dismissing a civil lawsuit filed pro se by the Plaintiff/Appellant against the federal government in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over, inter alia, cases sounding in bankruptcy as “district courts—and not the Claims Court—have ‘original and exclusive jurisdiction of all cases under title 11.’”
- Procedural context:
- The Federal Circuit reviewed the Court of Federal Claims' dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. In explaining its decision to affirm, the circuit court explained the "Court of Federal Claims is a federal tribunal of limited jurisdiction" that does not include "jurisdiction to review bankruptcy-related claims under 11 U.S.C. § 362[.]"
- Facts:
- Plaintiff/Appellant Michele R. Gray filed a pro se complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims seeking relief against the federal government. She alleged that her real property in Summerville, SC was taken without good cause pursuant to bankruptcy proceedings under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and § 362(d)(4). Plaintiff also asserted claims against the federal government in equity and under the Administrative Procedure Act. The complaint alleged subject matter jurisdiction existed under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). This was Plaintiff's second lawsuit filed in the Court of Federal Claims related to this property; the first was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The second lawsuit met the same fate; the order dismissing the case explained “'[t]he Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over cases sounding in bankruptcy"' and, further, that the court lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiff's "claims in equity and under the APA, the facts of which did not implicate actions by, or contracts with, the United States in any event." The court also "entered an anti-filing order '[i]n light of Ms. Gray’s repeated filing of frivolous complaints and other baseless pleadings.'" Apparently, Plaintiff previously had filed four lawsuits in 2022 in the Court of Federal Claims, all of which were dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff timely appealed.
- Judge(s):
- PROST, TARANTO, and HUGHES
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!
