Scott v. Harbeck
- James Oetken
- 1:22-cv-00241
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Scott v. Harbeck, Judge Oetken dismissed Scott’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction and denied leave to supplement.
Kevin Eric Scott’s complaint was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and his request to supplement it was denied. The defendants—Dorothy Anne Harbeck, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, and the United States—obtained those rulings.
What happened
In Scott v. Harbeck, Kevin Eric Scott sued Immigration Judge Dorothy Anne Harbeck, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, and the United States. He claimed that an alleged contract had settled his removal proceeding and sought an order requiring Judge Harbeck to carry out that agreement.
Scott originally sought money damages but later withdrew that request and pursued only enforcement of the alleged agreement. He also asked to add allegations that Judge Harbeck had sent him harassing mail.
Judge Oetken granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss because the court lacked authority to hear the contract dispute. The judge also denied Scott’s request to supplement his complaint, and the case was closed.
The detailed version
- Scott v. Harbeck · No. 1:22-cv-00241
- James Oetken
- Jan. 31, 2023
Background
Kevin Eric Scott, representing himself, sued Immigration Judge Dorothy Anne Harbeck, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, and the United States. He alleged breach of contract and sought a declaration that a removal order issued against him was null, void, or unenforceable under the alleged contract.
Scott alleged that he became the authorized representative and beneficiary of a trust named after himself and appointed Judge Harbeck as its trustee. He claimed that he sent her financial instruments totaling $2.5 million to settle the removal proceeding and make the notice to appear moot. After Judge Harbeck allegedly failed to confirm the settlement, Scott sent a notice of default and argued that her failure to respond accepted his settlement offer. Scott initially sought $1 million in damages, but later withdrew that request and sought only specific performance—an order requiring Judge Harbeck to perform the alleged agreement.
Scott also asked to supplement his complaint with allegations that Judge Harbeck had sent him harassing mail.
Jurisdiction and dismissal
The defendants moved to dismiss. The court granted the motion under Rule 12(b)(1), which allows dismissal when the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the dispute.
The court treated Scott’s claim as a contract dispute. It concluded that his request for specific performance of a contract with the United States was barred by the Tucker Act. The court reasoned that Scott’s own description of Judge Harbeck as a government representative authorized to bind the government implied that the alleged contract was with the United States. The court therefore held that it could not hear the dispute. It did not decide whether the alleged contract was valid or whether it settled Scott’s removal proceeding.
The defendants also argued that the complaint was too unclear to satisfy Rule 8. The court declined to dismiss on that ground, finding that the complaint and Scott’s opposition brief provided enough clarity to address jurisdiction.
Request to supplement
The court denied Scott’s request for leave to supplement the complaint under Rule 15(d). It found that the proposed allegations about harassment would not affect subject-matter jurisdiction, making the proposed supplementation futile.
Disposition
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissed the complaint, denied Scott’s request for leave to amend or supplement, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.