Today’s case: a short per curiam opinion from the Federal Circuit, Straw v. United States, No. 21-1596 (July 14, 2021).
The court affirmed the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of a takings claim that alleged that the plaintiff’s property was taken when the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s Federal Tort Claims Act claim for missing the statute of limitations deadline.
You know it wasn’t going to go well for the plaintiff when the court’s analysis (slip op. at 3) begins with this: “This appeal is frivolous.” The CFC takings claim was merely a “collateral attack” on the district court’s judgment, the court concluded. “Because Mr. Straw’s takings claim depends on him challenging the Georgia district court’s decision—which is final and preclusive—the Claims Court correctly held that it cannot grant the relief he seeks.” Slip op. at 4.
Besides, this isn’t really a takings claim, but a tort claim outside the jurisdiction of the CFC:
Mr. Straw contends that a claim of a taking of property without just compensation is cognizable even if the alleged taking is effected by judicial branch officers. The extent to which the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to the actions of courts has been the subject of debate. Compare Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Fla. Dep’t of Env’t Prot., 560 U.S. 702, 713–15 (opinion of Scalia, J.), with id. at 733–42 (opinion of Kennedy, J.). But even accepting that the prohibition against taking property without just compensation applies to courts in the same manner that it does to other governmental entities, there is no force to Mr. Straw’s argument that a party can characterize an adverse judicial decision in a tort case as a taking of a “chose in action” and seek “compensation” for that taking through an action in the Court of Federal Claims.
At bottom, Mr. Straw’s takings theory is based on the assertion that when a court errs in denying a plaintiff relief in a tort case, it effectively “takes” his cause of action and his entitlement to relief. Under that logic, all cases sounding in tort in which a plaintiff is denied relief could be re-cast as Takings Clause claims and re-presented to the Claims Court, notwithstanding the prohibition in the Tucker Act against the Claims Court exercising jurisdiction over tort claims. Not surprisingly, Mr. Straw cites no authority in support of that theory of recovery.
Slip op. at 5-6.
Which just reinforces our thinking that situations in which a judicial takings claim is viable are both rare and limited.
Straw v. United States, No. 21-1596 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2021) (per curiam)