Court Opinion

ID: 9899218
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-16 16:00:46.092405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:16.568457
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1693    Document: 20    Page: 1   Filed: 11/16/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

    JAVIER MANDRY, AKA JAVIER E. MANDRY-
                  MERCADO,
               Plaintiff-Appellant

                            v.

                    UNITED STATES,
                    Defendant-Appellee
                  ______________________

                        2023-1693
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:23-cv-00281-DAT, Judge David A. Tapp.
                  ______________________

                Decided: November 16, 2023
                  ______________________

    JAVIER MANDRY MERCADO, Ponce, PR, pro se.

     PATRICK ANGULO, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
 Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
 ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, LOREN MISHA
 PREHEIM.
                  ______________________

    Before LOURIE, REYNA, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-1693     Document: 20      Page: 2     Filed: 11/16/2023

 2                                                 MANDRY v. US

 PER CURIAM.
      Javier Mandry appeals from a decision of the United
 States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint
 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
                         BACKGROUND
     Mr. Mandry, a resident and taxpayer of the Common-
 wealth of Puerto Rico, filed a complaint before the United
 States Court of Federal Claims (“Court of Federal Claims”)
 seeking $5 million in damages and other relief. See Man-
 dry v. United States, 165 Fed. Cl. 170, 171 (2023) (“Deci-
 sion”).
     Among other things, Mr. Mandry’s complaint sought to
 challenge the legality of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Man-
 agement, and Economic Stability Act (“PROMESA”). Re-
 ply Br. 2, 5. Mr. Mandry had filed earlier lawsuits before
 the United States District Court for the District of Puerto
 Rico that were stayed as a result of PROMESA, and Mr.
 Mandry’s complaint before the Court of Federal Claims al-
 leged that those stays were unconstitutional. Id. at 3–4.
 Mr. Mandry also alleged that the passage of the 2014 Con-
 solidated Appropriations Act, Pub. Law No. 113-76, re-
 quired the United States to provide funds for a vote of all
 Puerto Rican residents to decide whether Puerto Rico
 should become the United States’ fifty-first state. 1 See, e.g.,
 Appellant’s Informal Br. 4–5; Reply Br. 2, 14.

     1   Mr. Mandry’s complaint also alleged other claims
 for relief that were addressed by the Court of Federal
 Claims, including under the First and Fourteenth Amend-
 ments. See Decision, at 172–73. On appeal, Mr. Mandry
 appears to state that he is no longer pursuing those claims.
 Reply Br. 2. Accordingly, they are not further addressed
 herein.
Case: 23-1693     Document: 20      Page: 3    Filed: 11/16/2023

 MANDRY v. US                                                 3

      Mr. Mandry’s informal complaint was filed on Febru-
 ary 21, 2023. Mandry v. United States, No. 23-281, ECF 1
 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 21, 2023). Approximately one month later,
 on March 27, 2023, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed
 it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state
 a claim. Decision, at 172. The Court of Federal Claims
 interpreted Mr. Mandry’s allegations regarding “Congres-
 sional inaction on the Puerto Rican statehood referendum
 and PROMESA” as a takings claim under the Fifth Amend-
 ment. Id. It concluded, however, that Mr. Mandry had
 failed to plead that “the United States took his private
 property for public use” as required to state such a claim.
 Id. at 173. As to Mr. Mandry’s challenge to the stay of his
 other cases under PROMESA, the Court of Federal Claims
 explained, “[i]t is well-settled law that this [c]ourt lacks
 subject-matter jurisdiction to review the judicial decisions
 of other courts.” Id. (citations omitted).
     Mr. Mandry timely appeals. We have jurisdiction to
 review the Court of Federal Claims’ decision under 28
 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
                    STANDARD OF REVIEW
     We review de novo decisions by the Court of Federal
 Claims to dismiss a case for lack of subject matter jurisdic-
 tion. See Diversified Grp. Inc. v. United States, 841 F.3d
 975, 980 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
                          DISCUSSION
     We affirm the Court of Federal Claims’ determination
 that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Mandry’s
 claims.
     The Court of Federal Claims is a court of limited juris-
 diction. United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 397–99
 (1976). That jurisdiction is established, at least in part, by
 the Tucker Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1491. Under the Tucker Act,
 the Court of Federal Claims can consider claims founded
 “upon any express or implied contract with the United
Case: 23-1693     Document: 20      Page: 4    Filed: 11/16/2023

 4                                                MANDRY v. US

 States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). The Tucker Act also gives
 the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over claims for
 money damages against the United States based on “the
 Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of
 an executive department.” Id.; Fisher v. United States, 402
 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (explaining that
 “a plaintiff must identify a separate source of substantive
 law that creates the right to money damages”).
      To support his position that the Court of Federal
 Claims has jurisdiction to hear his case, Mr. Mandry states
 that he “assert[s] claims arising from a breach of contract
 and claims based on separate sources of law.” Reply Br. 2.
 Mr. Mandry appears to allege that through the passage of
 the 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act, as well as the
 enactment of PROMESA and other conduct, the United
 States entered into a contract with Puerto Rico regarding
 its residents’ right to vote for Puerto Rico to join the Union,
 of which Mr. Mandry is a third-party beneficiary entitled
 to bring suit on Puerto Rico’s behalf. Appellant’s Informal
 Br. 13–17; Reply Br. 9–10, 13–14.
      Although Mr. Mandry attempts to style his claims as
 breach of contract, he has not alleged the existence of an
 express or implied contract that supports the Court of Fed-
 eral Claims’ jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. Creating a
 contract with the United States requires showing mutual-
 ity of intent between the United States and the other con-
 tracting party, consideration, unambiguous offer and
 acceptance, and authority on the part of a government offi-
 cial to bind the United States. See Biltmore Forest Broad.
 FM, Inc. v. United States, 555 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed.
 Cir. 2009). Congress’ passage of PROMESA does not fulfill
 these contract creation requirements, nor otherwise in-
 volve an earlier contract between the government and a
 private party that could implicate a breach of contract
 claim. Cf. Conner Bros. Const. Co. v. Geren, 550 F.3d 1368,
 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (discussing “the government’s
 dual roles as contractor and sovereign” in the context of the
Case: 23-1693     Document: 20      Page: 5    Filed: 11/16/2023

 MANDRY v. US                                                 5

 sovereign acts doctrine and reiterating that “the United
 States as a contractor cannot be held liable directly or in-
 directly for the public acts of the United States as a sover-
 eign”).
     Because Mr. Mandry appears to hinge all his jurisdic-
 tional arguments on appeal on this breach of contract the-
 ory, and because that theory lacks merit, he has not shown
 that the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over any
 of his claims. However, we also briefly address some of his
 other arguments.
     Mr. Mandry asserts a right to challenge the constitu-
 tionality of PROMESA on behalf of himself as well as oth-
 ers similarly situated. 2 As the Court of Federal Claims
 explained, Mr. Mandry’s challenge to PROMESA at most
 amounts to either a claim under the Fifth Amendment’s
 Takings Clause or disagreement with another court’s stay
 pursuant to PROMESA of other cases filed by Mr. Mandry.
 Decision, at 172–73. But at least as to his allegations seek-
 ing a vote for Puerto Rico to become the fifty-first state, Mr.
 Mandry has not alleged that the United States took his

     2    The Court of Federal Claims declined to consider
 Mr. Mandry’s class action claims because under the rules
 of the court, a pro se litigant cannot bring claims on behalf
 of a class. Decision, at 172. However, a few days before the
 Court of Federal Claims issued its decision, Mr. Mandry
 had submitted a request for appointment of temporary
 counsel with regard to his class claims. Appellant’s Infor-
 mal Br. 32–36. This request was not added to the court
 docket or resolved until after the Court of Federal Claims
 had issued its order dismissing the case. Because, as
 stated herein, the Court of Federal Claims would have
 lacked jurisdiction to hear Mr. Mandry’s class claims even
 if he was represented by counsel, this unusual timeline of
 events does not affect the outcome of Mr. Mandry’s case on
 appeal.
Case: 23-1693     Document: 20      Page: 6    Filed: 11/16/2023

 6                                                MANDRY v. US

 private property for public use without compensation. Mr.
 Mandry’s argument that “the property interest at stake in
 this matter pertains to the certification of election results,”
 Reply Br. 11, does not support a claim for the taking of Mr.
 Mandry’s—or others’—pirvate property by the govern-
 ment.
      In challenging the PROMESA stays of his other cases
 filed in the District of Puerto Rico, Mr. Mandry also fails to
 address the “well-settled law that [the Court of Federal
 Claims] lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the ju-
 dicial decisions of other courts.” Decision, at 173 (citing In-
 novair Aviation Ltd. v. United States, 632 F.3d 1336, 1344
 (Fed. Cir. 2011) and Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378,
 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Nor does Mr. Mandry adequately de-
 velop the argument that he should be permitted to chal-
 lenge the constitutionality of PROMESA’s stay provisions
 on a class action basis before the Court of Federal Claims.
 See Gelb v. Dept. of Veterans Affs., No. 2023-1157, 2023
 WL 3493702, at *7 n.6 (Fed. Cir. May 17, 2023) (nonprece-
 dential) (finding that pro se appellant, even with the plead-
 ings liberally construed, waived arguments by failing to
 develop them). This is particularly true given that
 PROMESA’s stay provisions state the District Court for the
 District of Puerto Rico has exclusive jurisdiction to provide
 relief from a stay under PROMESA in individual civil
 cases. See, e.g., 48 U.S.C. § 2194(e). In these circum-
 stances, we find insufficient support for Mr. Mandry’s as-
 sertion that the Court of Federal Claims can maintain
 jurisdiction over either his personal or class-wide chal-
 lenges to PROMESA.
      Mr. Mandry expresses the importance of ensuring that
 pro se litigants receive meaningful access to the courts and
 justice. See, e.g., Reply Br. 7–8. Public access to the courts
 is important, and one way we ensure that access is by hold-
 ing a pro se litigant’s complaint to a less stringent standard
 than a complaint filed by an attorney. Erickson v. Par-
 dus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). But even a pro se plaintiff is
Case: 23-1693    Document: 20       Page: 7   Filed: 11/16/2023

 MANDRY v. US                                               7

 not excused from the burden of meeting the court’s juris-
 dictional requirements. Kelley v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Labor,
 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Mr. Mandry has not
 met those requirements with his claims.
                        CONCLUSION
     We have considered Mr. Mandry’s other arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. We affirm the Court of Fed-
 eral Claims’ dismissal of Mr. Mandry’s complaint.
                        AFFIRMED
                            COSTS
 No costs.