NICHOLAS v. USA, No. 1:2017cv01847 - Document 10 (Fed. Cl. 2018)
Court Description: UNREPORTED ORDER AND OPINION: Granting 7 Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(1) and (6). The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Hodges, Jr. U.S. Certified Mail Tracking # 7012 3460 0001 7791 7791(vds) Service on parties made.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
NICHOLAS v. USA Doc. 10 Wntteb QCourt of jfeberal QClaims No. 17-1847 C (Filed April 25, 2018) PATRICK NICHOLAS, Plaintiff, FILED v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APR 2 5 2018 U.S . COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS Defendant. ORDER AND OPINION Hodges, Senior Judge. Plaintiff filed a Complaint pro se in this court, demanding return of approximately $ 13,000 allegedly taken from him by Secret Service agents and not returned. While it is difficult to determine the factual circumstances prompting this confiscation of plaintiffs property, we are satisfied that none of the grounds for a cause of action in this court are sufficient to meet plaintiffs burden of establishing jurisdiction. For that reason, we must grant defendant's motion to dismiss. The Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over claims under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment where the property's value exceeds $10,000, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a), and where plaintiff concedes the validity of the government's actions. Hearts Bluff Game Ranch, Inc. v. United States, 669 F.3d 1326, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Kortlander v. United States, 107 Fed. Cl. 357, 371-72 (2012). In his Complaint, plaintiff clearly does not concede the validity of the government action. Because plaintiff contends that the confiscation of $13,000 was by law improper, his case must be dismissed. See Kam-Almaz v. United States, 682 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (explaining that the Tucker Act does not create jurisdiction in our comi when the propriety of a seizure is contested.). However, this is not to say that plaintiff has no remedy at law. Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 41 (g) ("A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by deprivation of property may move for the property's return. The motion must be fil ed in the district where the property was seized.") For the reasons stated herein, plaintiffs Complaint does not fall within the jurisdiction of this court. 7012 3460 0001 7791 7791 Dockets.Justia.com Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED. 1 The Clerk of Court is directed to dismiss plaintiffs Complaint. No co s. IT IS SO ORDERED. · anc)f B. Firestone Senior Judge, for Robert H. Hodges, Jr. Senior Judge 1 Because no jurisdiction exists, consideration ofRCFC 12(b)(6) is unnecessary. -2-
]]>
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.
