COOK v. USA

Filing 5

UNPUBLISHED OPINION and ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis for the limited purpose of addressing the court's jurisdiction; and dismissing the complaint. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. No costs. Signed by Chief Judge Patricia E. Campbell-Smith. (dls) Copy to parties.

ORIGIhIAt
lJn tbe @ntteb btutes @ourt of feDeral @tstms
No. 13-870C

(Filed: November 14. 2013)

FILED
NO\/

DARRYL L. COOK.

14

2013

,H;t;f,ir'8lo?fit

Plaintiff,

THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant.

OPINIONAND ORDER
Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons in South
Carolina, frled a complaint in this court on November 1,2013, alleging personal injury
and property damage pusuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. $g 1346(b),
2671-80 (2006).' See senerally Compl., Dkt. No. 1 Plaintiff states that he was
transferred from one prison camp to another without proper transmission of his personal
property, which was ultimately destroyed. Id. fl 6. Plaintiff contends this was due to
defendant's negligence. Id. He also claims that the camp to which he was transferred
had contaminated water, which was particularly harmful to him due to the weakened
state of his immune system after his treatment for cancer. Id. plaintiff alleges that
defendant knowingly subjected him to this hazard. Id. He claims pain and distress in
the amount of $12 million, property damage totaling $10 million, loss of consortium,
and such otler relief the court deems necessary. Id. tTfl 10-12. The court dismisses
plaintiff s complaint, sua sponte, for the reasons explained below.

L

Legal Standards

complaints filed by pro se plaintiffs are held to "less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Haines v. Kerner, 404 u.S. 5lg, 520 (1972).

' Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See eenerally Appl. to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Dkt. No. 2. For the limited purpose of addrissing the
court's jurisdiction, that motion is GRANTED. The clerk will file the compiaint with
no filine fee.

Nevertheless, pro se plaintiffs must meet jurisdictional requirements. Bernard v. United
States,59 Fed. Cl. 497,499 (2004), affd,98 Fed. App'x 860 (2004).

The court may question its own subject-matter jurisdiction at any time. RCFC
12(h)(3) ("Ifthe court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the
court must dismiss the action."); Folden v. United States,379F.3d 1344, 1354 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (citing Fanning. Phillips & Molnar v. West, 160 F.3d 717,720 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
The Tucker Act provides for the court's jurisdiction over "any claim against the United
States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of
an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States,
or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort." 28 U.S.C. $
1491(a)(1).

The United States District Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over claims brought
under the Federal Tort Claims Act. See 28 U.S.C. $ 1346(bxl). When this court
determines that it lacks jurisdiction, it must transfer the case to a court where the action
could have been brought if the transfer "is in the interest ofjustice." 28 U.S.C. $ 1631.

U.

Discussion

Plaintiff states that his claim arises under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Compl. tl
1. As expressly excepted from the conferred jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, this
court does not have jurisdiction to entertain claims that sound in lort. 28 U.S.C. $
la9l(a)(l). Because plaintiffs complaint is based on a claim of tortious conduct, it
must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See RCFC l2(hX3).
The court next considers whether the claim merits a transfer. Plaintiff reports in
his complaint that he has already filed a claim in the United States District Court of
South Carolina, the appropriate venue for his Federal Tort Claims Act case. See Cook v.
Unite4 States, No. 0:11-cv-00320-RMG (D.S.C. Feb. 8, 2011; Feb. 6,2012: Nov. l,
2012).'His complaint was dismissed by the district court, and that decision was affirmed
by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Cook v. United States, No. 12-7947,
2013 WL 3069875, at *l (4th Cir. June 20,2013). The district court's earlier ruling on
plaintiffs claim counsels against the transfer of plaintiffs claim to the district court
now. On the facts of this case, such effort would be futile.

'A review of the complaint frled in the district court indicates that plaintiff s claim in
that court contains the same allegations as the claim presented to this court.

ru.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs
claims. Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED. The Cle* of Court will enter judgment
for defendant, No costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.