Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-05117/USCOURTS-ca13-14-05117-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

AARON G. FILLER, MD, PHD, FRCS, AN 

INDIVIDUAL,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2014-5117

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:13-cv-00464-EDK, Judge Elaine Kaplan.

______________________ 

Decided: March 10, 2015 

______________________ 

AARON G. FILLER, Santa Monica, CA, pro se.

JAMES R. SWEET, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by 

JOYCE R. BRANDA, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., FRANKLIN 

E. WHITE, JR. 

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

Case: 14-5117 Document: 25-2 Page: 1 Filed: 03/10/2015
2 FILLER v. US

PER CURIAM. 

Dr. Aaron G. Filler (“Dr. Filler”) appeals from the 

decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims 

(“the Claims Court”) dismissing his Fifth Amendment 

takings claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief 

can be granted. Filler v. United States, 116 Fed. Cl. 123

(2014). Because the Claims Court correctly dismissed Dr. 

Filler’s complaint, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Dr. Filler is a neurosurgeon in Santa Monica, California. In 2010, Susan Walker (“Walker”), a marine biologist 

employed by the National Marine Fisheries Service of the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the 

Department of Commerce (“NMFS”), traveled to Santa 

Monica to receive treatment from Dr. Filler for a workrelated injury. Dr. Filler performed several procedures on 

Walker, including multiple injections of medication. 

On January 31, 2011, Walker, under the username 

“sueinjuneau,” commented on a website called RunningForums.com in response to questions about Dr. Filler’s 

offered medical treatments. Appellee’s App. (“App.”) 27 

¶ 39. One such comment read:

Dr. Filler uses Wydase, which is a brand name of 

the enzyme hyaluronidase, in his piriformis injections to, in theory, break down scar tissue.

Wydase is a medical preparation of highly purified 

bovine testicular enzyme, made previously by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals in England. Production 

ceased due to the possible transmission of bovine 

spongiform encephalitis [(“BSE”)], or mad cow 

disease, though there is no documentation of 

transmission through this route.

Interestingly, Wydase is no longer manufactured 

and has not been manufactured in at least seven 

Case: 14-5117 Document: 25-2 Page: 2 Filed: 03/10/2015
FILLER v. US 3

years, so I’m not sure why [Dr.] Filler refers to the 

use of Wydase, and given the remote risk of [BSE] 

transmission that it poses, injecting it directly adjacent to a nerve does not seem advised.

Id. at 29–30 ¶ 49. Walker’s comments provided the bases 

for Dr. Filler’s actions for defamation and interference 

with prospective economic advantage filed in California 

state court, as well as his administrative claim under the 

Federal Tort Claims Act filed at the Department of Commerce. Filler, 116 Fed. Cl. at 126. 

Dr. Filler also sued the United States (“the government’) in the Claims Court, alleging that Walker’s comments effected a Fifth Amendment taking of his medical 

license without just compensation. App. 16–17 ¶¶ 4–5. 

Specifically, Dr. Filler alleged that Walker, by posting her

comments on RunningForums.com during working hours 

from a government computer and by relying on her NMFS

training, acted as an agent of the government providing a 

“public warning about danger to the health and safety of

the United States populace.” Id. at 29 ¶ 48; see also id. at 

22 ¶ 24; id. at 26 ¶¶ 36–37. Dr. Filler further alleged that 

Walker’s comments “diminished the value of his medical 

license so completely that [they] constituted an inverse 

condemnation.” Filler, 116 Fed. Cl. at 126–27; App. 54–55 

¶¶ 129–131. The government moved to dismiss the

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for 

failure to state a claim under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) 

of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). 

The Claims Court held that it had subject matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act because Dr. Filler asserted a nonfrivolous takings claim that was not so “devoid of 

merit” or “insubstantial” as to undermine its jurisdiction. 

Filler, 116 Fed. Cl. at 127. Nonetheless, the court dismissed Dr. Filler’s complaint for failure to state a claim 

under RCFC 12(b)(6). Id. at 128. The court reasoned that 

the facts alleged did not support the conclusory assertion 

Case: 14-5117 Document: 25-2 Page: 3 Filed: 03/10/2015
4 FILLER v. US

that Walker acted on behalf of the government and, 

alternatively, that Dr. Filler’s medical license did not, as a 

matter of law, constitute a compensable property interest 

for purposes of the Takings Clause. Id. 

 Filler timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). 

DISCUSSION

We review de novo the Claims Court’s dismissal for 

failure to state a claim under RCFC 12(b)(6). Kam-Almaz 

v. United States, 682 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 

Even though we hold a pro se complaint to “less stringent 

standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” 

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), that complaint 

must still “allege facts ‘plausibly suggesting (not merely 

consistent with)’ a showing of entitlement to relief” to 

avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, Acceptance 

Ins. Cos. v. United States, 583 F.3d 849, 853 (Fed. Cir. 

2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 

557 (2007)). The facts as alleged “must be enough to raise 

a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are 

true (even if doubtful in fact).” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555

(citations omitted). We are “not bound to accept as true a 

legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Id.

(quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986))

(internal quotation marks omitted). 

The Fifth Amendment provides that private property 

shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. U.S. Const. amend. V, cl. 4. A compensable taking 

under the Fifth Amendment, however, requires authorized government action. Del-Rio Drilling Programs Inc. v. 

United States, 146 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1998). If the 

government action is unauthorized, “the acts of defendant’s officers may be enjoinable, but they do not constitute 

a taking effective to vest some kind of title in the government and entitlement to just compensation in the owner 

Case: 14-5117 Document: 25-2 Page: 4 Filed: 03/10/2015
FILLER v. US 5

or former owner.” Id. (citations omitted); see also Florida 

Rock Indus., Inc. v. United States, 791 F.2d 893, 898 (Fed. 

Cir. 1998) (“The Tucker Act suit in the Claims Court is 

not, however, available to recover damages for unauthorized acts of government officials.” (citations omitted)). 

“Government agents have the requisite authorization if 

they act within the general scope of their duties, i.e., if 

their actions are a ‘natural consequence of Congressionally approved measures,’ or are pursuant to the ‘good faith 

implementation of a Congressional Act.’” Del-Rio, 146 

F.3d at 1362 (citations omitted). 

Dr. Filler argues that his complaint plausibly establishes a duty on the part of the Department of Commerce 

and NMFS to protect human health and safety. Dr. Filler 

specifically alleges that Walker’s NMFS office regularly 

prepares reports on BSE contamination, and thus Walker 

has the authority to issue a public warning, such as her 

RunningForums.com comment, about potential BSE 

spread. Moreover, Dr. Filler contends that Walker did not 

have an independent purpose in issuing those comments. 

The government responds that the complaint does not 

plausibly show that Walker acted on behalf of the government. The government first argues that NMFS lacks

the authority to regulate medical practices or drug safety. 

The government next contends that NMFS’s authority, 

and thus Walker’s authority, to the extent it includes

discussing disease pathogenesis, is limited to assessing 

routes of passage from humans into marine animals. The 

government notes that to the extent NMFS does comment

about BSE spread, it does so in official reports or on 

official websites with authors identifying themselves as 

speaking on behalf of NMFS. Thus, the government 

continues, Walker only encountered Wydase as a patient, 

and thus her comments were merely “in her individual 

capacity as a former patient who was concerned about a 

product.” Appellee’s Br. 8. 

Case: 14-5117 Document: 25-2 Page: 5 Filed: 03/10/2015
6 FILLER v. US

We agree with the government and the Claims Court 

that the facts alleged in Dr. Filler’s complaint fail to 

support the conclusory assertion that Walker acted on 

behalf of the government when she posted her comments 

on RunningForums.com. NMFS does not have the statutory authority to regulate medical practices or drug 

safety. Instead, NMFS’s authority derives from the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. Ch. 38), the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. Ch. 31), and the Endangered Species 

Act (16 U.S.C. Ch. 35). App. 26 ¶ 37; see Filler, 116 Fed. 

Cl. at 128–29. NMFS’s authority is therefore limited to 

managing, conserving, and protecting living marine water 

resources in United States waters. The complaint recites

various other statutes and constitutional provisions as 

granting NMFS the authority to issue public warnings 

and protect human health and safety. As the Claims 

Court recognized, however, those provisions expressly 

relate to the “enforcement purview of either the Department of Agriculture or the Food and Drug Administration,” Filler, 116 Fed. Cl. at 129; none authorize NMFS

action in a similar fashion. 

To the extent NMFS does report on BSE spread, as 

Dr. Filler alleges, see App. 44–45 ¶ 96–98, that reporting 

narrowly discusses concerns with transmitting BSE to 

marine life, via fish feed for example, as provided for in

the agency’s governing statutes. Moreover, as a marine 

biologist employed by the NMFS, Walker’s reports focus

primarily on the “non-fishing impact” on various fish 

habitats: “this involve[s] an analysis of routes of passage 

of infectious agents from humans into marine mammals 

and into food supplies.” Id. at 46 ¶ 101. Such a reporting 

infrastructure does not support Dr. Filler’s broad contention that NMFS and Walker have the authority to disseminate public health warnings, and comment generally, on 

the safety of any medical practice. Dr. Filler’s allegation 

that reporting the possible risks of BSE spread through 

Case: 14-5117 Document: 25-2 Page: 6 Filed: 03/10/2015
FILLER v. US 7

Wydase injections is a necessary extension of authorized 

duties is therefore unpersuasive. See id. at 48 ¶ 105. As 

the Claims Court stated, “the facts show that Ms. Walker 

acted in her individual capacity as a former patient of Dr. 

Filler for her independent purpose of conveying her 

personal views on the efficacy and advisability of the 

treatment that she believed Dr. Filler had used on her 

and other patients.” Filler, 116 Fed. Cl. at 129. 

Because no authorized government action was implicated, the Claims Court correctly dismissed Dr. Filler’s 

takings claim for failure to state a claim under RCFC 

12(b)(6). Accordingly, we need not address the Claims 

Court’s alternative basis for dismissing the complaint. 

CONCLUSION

We have considered Dr. Filler’s remaining arguments, 

but find them unpersuasive. The Claims Court’s dismissal of Dr. Filler’s takings claim is therefore affirmed. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 14-5117 Document: 25-2 Page: 7 Filed: 03/10/2015