Mandry v. United States

Pro Se

Question(s) Presented

1. “Whether participation in the Congress-authorized 2017 and 2020 plebiscite for Puerto Ricans, on statehood elections, constitutes an implied in fact contract for the purposes of a Tucker Act claim against the United States?”

2. “Whether Petitioner under the Tucker Act is entitled to compensatory and injunctive relief compelling the United States to recognize the outcome of the plebiscites, which unequivocally demonstrated the majority’s desire for Puerto Rico to become the 51st state under the U.S. Constitution?”

3. “Local court rules that systematically hinder pro se litigants’ access to justice can be interpreted as a regulatory encroachment on their constitutional right to seek redress. This infringement amounts to a violation of the Fifth Amendment, warranting compensation under the Tucker Act. The petitioner argues that by leaving pro se matters to judicial discretion, Congress has inadvertently created a policy that unfairly treats pro se litigants as secondclass participants in the legal process, abridging due process rights. Additionally, considering pro se litigants as a distinct class, there may be an implicit contractual obligation for the courts to ensure equitable treatment and facilitate their access to the judicial system”

4. “How does the Fifth Amendment, in conjunction with Pub. L. No. 113-76 and the implied-in-fact contractual relationship between the United States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico arising from the plebiscites, confer standing upon a Puerto Rican resident, an American citizen, to bring monetary claims against the United States under the Tucker Act, particularly in cases involving nullified election results and withheld disbursements, despite the lower court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction?”

5. “Does a Puerto Rican taxpayer, acknowledged as a vital stakeholder in the Commonwealth’s fiscal affairs and duty-bound to safeguard the local treasury, wield legal standing to initiate litigation against the United States, premised on alleged violations of provisions delineated within the 2014 Appropriations Bill? Moreover, considering the taxpayer’s imperative role in preserving the local treasury and the apparent inertia of the Commonwealth subsequent to payment denials and the disregard of plebiscite mandates — which underscored a prevailing desire for statehood — does a cogent legal argument emerge for petitioning the nullification of the PROMESA Act? This argument, rooted in Puerto Rico’s potential status as a state vis-a-vis its current territorial designation. Additionally, does the taxpayer possess grounds to pursue reimbursement for pertinent expenses borne by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico due to the United States’ failure to accord Puerto Rico statehood recognition? Such failure may arguably constitute an illegal exaction against the taxpayer, thereby implicating all Puerto Rican taxpayers in a manner warranting redress and protection under federal law.”

6. “Does the Tucker Act offer a viable recourse for individuals to pursue compensation for purported unconstitutional deprivations by state condemnation proceedings at state courts and all cases and appeals, specifically in scenarios where private property is seized for public bankruptcy proceedings, constituting a potential Fifth Amendment taking for public use? Furthermore, does this avenue remain accessible when such cases are indefinitely stayed under the automatic stay provision of the PROMESA Act, effectively halting proceedings against the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico until the dissolution of the PROMESA Fiscal Board?”

Posts About this Case

Proceedings and Orders
June 5, 2024
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/20/2024.
June 24, 2024
Petition DENIED.