In Ricks v. United States, a plaintiff incarcerated for Louisiana rape convictions sued in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging that his convictions were invalid because the grand jury accusations were not made under oath and seeking expungement of the charges from his records in Florida and Louisiana along with related injunctive relief. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss, holding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act because the claims did not seek money damages based on a money-mandating source of law, involved non-federal defendants, were time-barred by the six-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2501, and asked the court to review the validity of state criminal convictions, which it has no authority to do. The court also declined to transfer the case to another court because similar claims were already pending in federal district court.
This case is a bid protest brought by Dutch Ridge Consulting Group, LLC against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims challenging the Department of Defense's cancellation of a solicitation for contractor support of background investigations for security clearances. After determining that significant additional work needed to be incorporated, the agency canceled the original solicitation and issued a new one; Dutch Ridge, which had been in the competitive range, argued the cancellation was unnecessary and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the agency from accepting proposals on the new solicitation until its protest was resolved. The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that Dutch Ridge was unlikely to succeed on the merits because the agency's decision to cancel was not arbitrary or capricious and that Dutch Ridge had not demonstrated irreparable harm from allowing the new solicitation process to proceed.
Antoine Ford, a former Navy and Navy Reserve human resources officer, sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims seeking compensation for alleged service-related injuries to his back and shoulder as well as PTSD, including claims for improper release from active duty, incapacitation pay, disability retirement benefits, and due process violations from the denial of an in-person hearing and discovery. The court reviewed the Board of Correction of Naval Records' latest decision after a prior remand and found that the Navy had properly applied fitness standards, considered the evidence, and provided reasoned explanations for denying the claims, including that Ford had not supplied adequate documentation for lost income and that his conditions were not shown to have rendered him unfit for duty. The court rejected the due process arguments, holding that no in-person hearing was required and that supplementation of the record was not warranted. It therefore denied Ford's motion for judgment on the administrative record, denied his discovery motion, and granted the government's cross-motion. The topics are federal power, civil rights, and procedure.
This case involved a bid protest by Joerns Healthcare, LLC challenging its exclusion from a Department of Veterans Affairs procurement for hospital beds for home use. The solicitation required beds with a minimum width of 36 inches and others that could extend to at least 42 inches, with compliance verified by tape measure and non-responsive bids excluded for failing to meet the minimums. Joerns argued that industry practice allowed for roughly one inch of variation below the stated dimensions and that the selected products did not qualify as commercial items under FAR Part 12, but the court rejected these claims. The court held that the solicitation language was unambiguous, Joerns' interpretation was unreasonable and waived by failing to protest before proposals were due, and Joerns could not show prejudice. The court denied Joerns' motion for judgment on the administrative record and granted the government's cross-motion.
Joshua Schulz filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, claiming that an influenza vaccine caused him to develop transverse myelitis. The Special Master denied the off-table claim, finding that Schulz failed to meet his burden under all three Althen prongs by not causally linking the vaccine to the condition, providing evidence of a logical cause-and-effect sequence, or showing timely manifestation of the injury. Schulz moved for review, arguing errors including the denial of subpoena requests for additional records. The court sustained the Special Master's decision, holding that the evidence was reasonably weighed under the applicable framework and that the conclusions were neither arbitrary nor capricious, with additional records unlikely to change the result.
Khalif Quran, proceeding pro se, filed this action in the Court of Federal Claims seeking review of his state criminal conviction and incarceration, along with monetary damages based on criminal statutes, equity principles, maritime law, and alleged trust relationships arising from birth certificates or driver’s licenses. The court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, holding that the claims did not arise from any money-mandating source of law. The core reasoning was that the court has no authority to adjudicate criminal matters, collaterally review state court decisions, hear admiralty claims (reserved exclusively for district courts), or grant equitable relief absent a valid monetary claim.