EDWARDS v. USA, No. 1:2017cv01104 - Document 9 (Fed. Cl. 2017)
Court Description: UNREPORTED OPINION and ORDER granting 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis solely for the purposes of deciding the government's motion to dismiss, and granting 6 Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(1). The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Elaine D. Kaplan. (dls) Copy to parties. (Plaintiff served via certified mail; Article No. 7017 1450 0000 1346 0843)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
EDWARDS v. USA Doc. 9 r".t/FtBi I ",i;..i{"ii Eti'.,r!;d '' lln tbt @nitr! 9ltstts @ourt of L. FILED NoV feltrsl I Z 2017 @tutpgg;,'3;9, No. 17-1104C Gro Se) (Filed: November 17 ,2017 | Not for Publication) Keywords: Pro Se Complaint; Subject Mafler Jurisdiction; 28 U.S.C. STEVEN E. EDWARDS, A Plaintiff, "{< THE LINITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. Steven E. Edwards, Weilsville, KS, pro se. Joshua A. Mendlebaum, Trial Attomey, commercial Litigation Branch, civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, with whom were Tara K Hogan, Assistant Director, Robert E. Kirschman, "/r., Director, and Chad A' Readler, Acting Assistant Attomey General, for Plaintiff. OPINIONAI{D ORDER KAPLAN, Judge. pro se Plaintiff Steven Edwards alleges that the govemment has breached the terms of a plea agreement he entered in 2006, causing him money damages. Mr. Edwards has previously filed two similar complaints before the Court of Federal Claims. See Compl., Edwards v. United States (Edwards I), No' 13-cv-971 (Dec' 9,2013)' Dkt' No' 1; Compl., Edwards v. United States GdwardslD, No. 17-cv-1038 (Julv 31, 2017)' Dk1' No. i. those complaints were dismissed without prejudice. See Opinion and Order at 2, Edwards I (Jan. 10, 2014), Dkt. No. 5 (dismissing complaint for lack of subject mattel j*irai"tion); Order at 1-2, Edwards II ( Aug.4,2017), Dkt. No' 5 (dismissing complaint iased on N4r. Edwards's failure to pay the filing fee and on deficiencies in Mr. Edwards's motion to proceed in forma pauperis). The govemment has now moved to similarly dismiss Mr. Edwards'Surrent complaint. Dkt. No. 6. For the reasons discussed below, the sovemment's motion is GRANTED.I Mr. Edwards has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. No. 4, which the Court GRAITITS solely for purposes of deciding the govemment's motion to dismiss' I ?ul,? rq50 n000 13'+b 08ttl Dockets.Justia.com BACKGROUND2 In 2006, Mr. Edwards entered into a plea agreement with the United States, in which he agreed to plead guilty to several charges, including two counts of mail fraud and one count of theft of health care funds. Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss (Def.'s Mot.) App. at A82-83; see also id. at A26. He also consented to the forfeiture of certain property. Id. at A83. On June 26,2006, thelJnited States District Cou( for the Middle District of North Carolina entered judgement against him; sentenced him to a term of imprisonment; and ordered him to pay criminal monetary penalties in the form offines, a special assessment, and restitution. ld. at A26-27 , A30. The court also ordered the forfeiture of certain properties to the united states. Id. at A'31. Over the next several years, Mr. Edwards embarked on a long course of litigation challenging his conviction pursuant to 28 u.s.c. $ 2255, both before the Middle District of North Carolina and Court ofAppeals for the Fourth Circuit.s See id. at A7-25, A6162. Among other things, he claimed that he did not voluntarily and intelligently enter the plea agreement. See id. at 454-58. The district court rejected his arguments' and the Fourth Circuit repeatedly declined to permit him to file a second or successive $ 2255 motion. Id. at 461-65; see also 28 U.S.C. $ 2255(h) (providing that "[a] second or successive motion must be certified . . . by a panel ofthe appropriate court of appeals"). In December 2013, Mr. Edwards frled his first complaint in the Court of Federal Claims, in which he alleged that the plea agreement was "unconstitutional" and ,.unla*firl" and thus that his restitution payments and the forfeited assets "should all be given back to [him]." See id. at A71, A76. Judge Wheeler dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, observing that "claims for breach ofplea agreements and other agreements unique to the criminal justice system should be brought in the courts in which they were negotiated and executed." Id- at A81 (quoting Sanders v. United States, 252F .3d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001))' Mr. Edwards filed his second complaint on July 31, 2017. Compl', Edwards II. In it, he alleged that the govemment "didn't honor and go by what the Plea Agreement The facts set forth in this section are based on the allegations in Mr' Edwards's complaint, which the Court accepts as true for purposes ofdeciding the governrnent's moti,on, as well as on the contents of the documents attached to the govemment's motion. 2 3 Section 2255(a) provides as follows: prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the gtound that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law' or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence. A sa[id]" and that his "forfeiture amount . . . should be retumed" to him. Id. at 5-6. As noted, Judge Hom dismissed the complaint based on Mr. Edwards's failure to pay the court's filing fee and on deficiencies in his motion to proceed in forma pauoeris. Order at 1-2, Edwards II. Judge Hom also noted, however, that'1o the extent [Mr. Edwards was] complaining about an earlier criminal case, his plea agreement, and his subsequent incarceration, this court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate those claims." Id. at 2. Mr. Edwards filed the present complaint on August 8, 2017. See Compl. at 1. In line with his previous complaints, he alleges that the govemment "took roughly over $10,000,000 in Cash and assets[] that [he] now deserve[s] back." Id. He claims that he is "not complaining about [his] criminal case" and that he 'Just really want[s] the United States . . . to honor [his] . . . Plea Agreement Bargain contract ." ld' at l-2. He also alleges that his "complaints . . . include[]" several named individuals, although he does not describe how those individuals engaged in any unlawful conduct. Id. at 2. DISCUSSION In deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the cout accepts as true all undisputed facts in the pleadings and draws all reasonable inferences in favor ofthe plaintiff. Trusted Intesmtion. Inc. v. United States, 659 F'3d 1159, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The court may also "inquire into jurisdictional facts" to determine whether it has jurisdiction. Rocovich v. United States , 933 F .2d 991,993 (Fed. Cir. 1991). It is well established that complaints filed by pro se plaintiffs (as is this one), are held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Haines v. Kemer,404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Nonetheless, even pro se plaintiffs must persuade the Court that jurisdictional requirements have been met. Bemard v. United States, 59 Fed. Cl. 497, 499 (2004), af? d,98 Fed. App'x 860 (Fed. Cit.2004)' The Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction under the Tucker Act to hear "any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation ofan executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort." 23 U.S.C. $ 1491(a\1) (2012). The Tucker Act waives the sovereign immunity of the United States to ailow a suit for money damages, United States v. Mitcheli,463 U.S. 206,212 (1983), but it does not confer any substantive rights. United States v. Testan,424 U.S. 392, 39S (1976). Therefore, a plaintiff seeking to invoke the court's Tucker Actjurisdiction must identifr an independent source of a substantive right to money damages from the United States arising out ofa contract, statute, regulation or constitutional provision. Jan's Helicopter Serv.. Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin.' 525 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Applying these standards, the Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Edwards's claims. The Federal Circuit has held that "alleged breaches ofplea agreements and other agreements arising out of the criminal justice system do not ordinarily give rise to claims for money damages" under the Tucker Act. Sanders, 252F .3d at 1336; see also Kania v. United States, 650 F.2d 458, 465-66 (Ct. Cl. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 895 (1981); Phane v. United States, 87 Fed. CL.321,328-28 (2009). This is so because "'the high function of enforcing and policing the criminal law is assigned to the courts of general jurisdiction and not' to" the Court of Federal Claims, which has no jurisdiction over criminal matters. Sanders,252F.3d at 1335 (quoting Kania, 650 F.2d at268). The Federal Circuit has recognized the possibility that a plea agreement that included "express language" setting forth an "unmistakable promise to subject the United States to monetary liability" could support a claim for money damages under the Tucker Act. See Sanders,252F.3dat 1336. Mr. Edwards's plea agreement, however, includes no such language. Under Sanders and Kania, the Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to consider his claim for damages arising out ofthe plea agreement's alleged breach'a CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, the Court lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Edwards's complaint. The govemment's motion to dismiss is therefore GRANTED and Mr. Edwards's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Each side shall bear its own costs. IT IS SO ORDERED. e-/4ELAINE D. KAPLAN Judge Further, to the extent Mr. Edwards asserts any claims against individuals employed by the federal govemment, the Court lacks jurisdiction over such claims. See United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) C'[I]fthe relief sought is against others than the United States the suit as to them must be ignored as beyond the jurisdiction of the court."). a A
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
