Brosnan v. United States of America

Background

John Brosnan sued the United States, alleging that it violated his Fifth Amendment right to a fair trial. He alleged that the United States failed to provide mail that would have shown the jury that a witness, Brysk, was profiting from involvement in a criminal enterprise and was testifying to protect it. Brosnan also alleged that information about the mail was removed from the trial transcript.

Brosnan further alleged that, after he was sent to prison, he was prevented from earning money from technologies he developed. He said the United States Patent and Trademark Office refused to grant a patent for one technology and that the Department of State’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls voided his application for an export permit because it demanded detailed plans. His complaint asserted one Fifth Amendment claim and sought either $7 billion or permission to export his technologies without providing plans to the United States.

Motions and response

The United States moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which challenges the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Brosnan did not file an opposition by the deadline. The court gave him another opportunity to respond and ordered him to explain the late filing, but he still did not oppose the motion to dismiss. The court’s standing order states that failing to oppose a motion constitutes consent to granting it. Brosnan did file a reply concerning his separate motion for permission to export.

Court’s analysis

The court first treated Brosnan’s failure to oppose as consent and granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice. The court also held that dismissal with prejudice was warranted on the substance of the jurisdictional motion.

The court explained that the United States generally has sovereign immunity, meaning it cannot be sued unless it has waived that protection. A plaintiff must also identify statutory authority giving a district court jurisdiction over a claim against the United States.

For Brosnan’s request for money damages based on an alleged constitutional violation, the court found that the United States had not waived sovereign immunity. For his request for permission to export his technology, the court found that he cited no authority showing a waiver of sovereign immunity or statutory authorization for that relief, and the court knew of none. The court also stated that amendment appeared futile because nothing suggested that such a waiver or statutory authorization existed. In a footnote, the court discussed a possible patent-related statute but found that Brosnan alleged no facts showing he had completed the required administrative steps and that the statute would not provide the requested export relief.

Disposition

The court granted the United States’ motion to dismiss with prejudice and dismissed the case with prejudice. Because the case was dismissed with prejudice, the court denied Brosnan’s motion to export as moot. The conclusion separately states that the motion to dismiss was granted, the motion to export was denied, and the case was dismissed with prejudice.