by bvernia | November 6th, 2009
Perhaps because the False Claims Act’s name sounds so broad, it’s an attractive nuisance to a lot of pro so complainants. In Stevens v. United States, 2009 WL 3650874 (Ct. Fed. Cl. October 28, 2009) (no public opinion available), Judge Miller handled a troubled plaintiff with respect and dignity. Stevens filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims against the Departments of Justice and HHS, alleging various constitutional violations arising from the agencies’ conspiring not to investigate an incident in which an assailant broke Stevens’ leg and implanted in his body an electronic chip.
Mr. Stevens candidly acknowledged in his complaint that he has raised his allegations in numerous other suits (against, along with various governmental entities, the Mount Olive Pickle Company), and that “[t]he courts told me usually that my allegations were fanciful, fantastic and delusional.”
Judge Miller declined to take the easy way out, however, and instead addressed the jurisdictional deficits in Stevens’ complaint in four and a half pages of analysis. Nor did he characterize Stevens’ claims as “fanciful, fantastic and delusional.” (Needless to say, he rejected Stevens’ FCA claims.)
Although Mr. Stevens’ trip to the Court of Federal Claims is probably not his final attempt to obtain judicial redress of grievances, it is probably one of the more respectful audiences he’s received.
