Scruggs v. United States
| Decision Date | 06 April 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 17-1581C,17-1581C |
| Parties | GRANVILLE SCRUGGS, II, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Claims Court |
ORIGINAL
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Pro Se; RCFC 12(b)(1); Subject-Matter Jurisdiction; Summary Judgment; RCFC 56.
Granville Scruggs, II, Olive Branch, MS, plaintiff pro se.
Kelly A. Krystyniak, Trial Attorney, Tara K. Hogan, Assistant Director, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Director, Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant.
Plaintiff pro se, Granville Scruggs, II, brings this action seeking to recover monetary damages from the United States in connection with certain mutilated currency claims that he submitted to the United States Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing (the "BEP"). See generally Am. Compl. As relief, plaintiff seeks to recover $960,474,00 from the government. Compl. at 4; see also Def. Mot. at 2.
The government has moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction upon the grounds that the Court does not possess subject-matter jurisdiction to consider plaintiff's takings, breach of contract, criminal law, tort, and civil rights claims, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"). See generally Def. Mot. Alternatively, the government moves for summary judgment in its favor, pursuant to RCFC 56, upon the ground that the BEP properly denied plaintiff's mutilated currency claims. Id.
Plaintiff has also moved to proceed in this matter in forma pauperis. See generally Pl. IFP Mot. For the reasons set forth below, the Court: (1) GRANTS the government's motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment; (2) GRANTS plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis; and (3) DISMISSES plaintiff's complaint.
Plaintiff pro se, Granville Scruggs, II, filed this action on October 18, 2017. See generally Compl. Plaintiff's complaint and amended complaint are difficult to follow. But, it appears that plaintiff primarily alleges that United States Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing improperly denied certain mutilated currency claims that he submitted to the BEP in 2014. Id. at 4; Am. Compl. at 1; see also Def. Mot. at 2. In the amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that he submitted lawfully held legal tender to the BEP, consistent with the BEP's mutilated currency regulations. Am. Compl. at 2, 4. And so, plaintiff contends that the BEP violated the agency's mutilated currency regulations by denying his mutilated currency claims. Id.
Plaintiff also appears to allege that he has entered into a valid contract with the government to recover certain monetary damages that he seeks in this case. Id. at 1. In addition, plaintiff appears to allege that the government engaged in a wrongful criminal prosecution involving plaintiff. Id. at 2-3 (). As relief, plaintiff seeks to recover $960,474.00 in monetary damages from the government. Compl. at 4; see also Def. Mot. at 2.
As background, the BEP redeems mutilated United States currency as a free service to the public. See BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND PRINTING SERVICES, Redeem Mutilated Currency, https://bep.gov/services/currencyredemption.html (last visited Mar. 23, 2018). The lawful holders of mutilated currency may redeem their currency at full value when the currency has been damaged to the extent that its condition is such that the currency's value is questionable. Id. Under such circumstances, mutilated currency must be sent to the BEP for examination before any redemption of the currency is made. Id.
Specifically relevant to this dispute, the BEP has promulgated regulations that govern the process for redeeming mutilated currency. See generally 31 C.F.R. § 100.2-.19. These regulations define "mutilated currency" as follows:
31 C.F.R. § 100.5(b)(i)-(ii). Under the BEP's mutilated currency regulations, "[l]awfully held mutilated paper currency of the United States may be submitted for examination in accord with the provisions [of these regulations]." Id. § 100.5(a). And so, mutilated currency may be redeemed at face amount if sufficient remnants of any relevant security feature and clearly more than one-half of the original note remains. Id.
The BEP's mutilated currency regulations also describe the procedure for redeeming mutilated currency. The regulations provide that:
Id. § 100.7(a). But, the regulations provide that:
Id. at § 100.7(b).
Lastly these regulations provide that:
All cases will be handled under proper procedures to safeguard the funds and interests of the submitter of lawfully held mutilated currency. In some cases, the amount redeemed will be less than the amount estimated by the submitter. In other cases, the amount redeemed may be greater. The amount redeemed will be determined by an examination made by trained mutilated currency examiners and governed by the above criteria.
Id. at § 100.7(d). And so, the Director of the BEP has the final authority with respect to the redemptions of mutilated currency submissions. Id. at § 100.7(e).
In 2014, plaintiff submitted several mutilated currency claims to the BEP. Def. Mot. at A23-24, A29. After the BEP became suspicious of plaintiff's claims, the BEP's Mutilated Currency Division sent a complaint to the Department of the Treasury's Office of the Inspector General (the "OIG") alleging that plaintiff had purchased bags of shredded currency from a BEP store and then submitted these bags of shredded currency to the BEP with redemption claims. Id. at A23.
On September 9, 2015, the OIG issued a final report finding that the Mutilated Currency Division's complaint had been substantiated and that plaintiff's mutilated currency claims were improper. Id. at A23. Specifically, the OIG found that, on December 18, 2013, "a subject using the name Douglas Hornsby and address 12860 Pine Crest Drive, Olive Branch, MS 38654, placed an order for two, five pound bags of shredded U.S. currency from The BEP Store online." Id. The OIG also found that "[a] second, identical order was placed on December 27, 2013." Id.
In addition, the OIG found that, "on February 6, 2014, the BEP received a [mutilated currency claim] for four bags of shredded currency from [plaintiff, using the 12860 Pine Crest Drive address]." Id. The OIG also found that, on September 10, 2014, the BEP received an email that appeared to be from plaintiff stating that a friend of plaintiff had purchased the four bags of shredded currency for plaintiff, and claiming a mitigated currency value of approximately $52,800.00. Id.
After the BEP denied plaintiff's first mutilated currency claim on May 7, 2014, the OIG found that plaintiff "submitted additional shredded currency claims" to BEP in the respective amounts of $250,000.00—in September 2014—and $704,666.00—in December, 2014. Id. at A23-A24. The BEP denied both of these claims. Id. Thereafter, the OIG issued a cease and desist warning to plaintiff and advised plaintiff that his conduct in submitting these mutilated currency claims violated of both criminal and civil law.2 Id. at A24.
Prior to commencing this action, plaintiff filed several other cases involving his mutilated currency claims.
On November 10, 2015, plaintiff commenced an action in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, which was later removed to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that he submitted mutilated currency to the BEP which had not been properly redeemed. Am. Compl. Ex. 1, at 3 (docket entry no. 8-1); see also Def. Mot. at 3. On August 1, 2016, the district court dismissed this case upon jurisdictional grounds. Am. Compl. Ex. 1, at 6-9 (docket entry no. 8-1).
On February 17, 2016, plaintiff commenced an action in this Court seeking to recover $960,474.00 from the government as redemption for 54 pounds of mutilated currency. See generally Scruggs v. United States, Case No. 16-0235C, 2016 WL...
To continue reading
Request your trial