HOVER v. USA

Filing 4

PUBLISHED OPINION and ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, with plaintiff directed to pay the filing fee in full pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (b); and dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. No costs. Signed by Judge Margaret M. Sweeney. (dls) Copy to parties.

ORICIIl{AL

llntbe @ndtr! $tuttg 6,ourt otfelrrs[ {.laimg FILED
No. 13-895C
(Filed: November 14, 2013)

**** *** *t * *** *** * ** ***r' *+**+*
DAVID HOVER,

NO\/

14

tito?rtoot'3lf,fi,

*:+* *:**:*{.

Pro Se Plaintiff; Dismissal for Lack of
Jurisdiction; Application to Proceed In
Forma Pauoeris

Plaintiff,

THE UNITED STATES,

****r( *** *** ***

Defendant.
* * * * * + * + + * * * * * :t *

David Hover, Sterling, CO, gq

'*

:*

,,

*

+

**

*

se.

OPINION AND ORDER
SWEENEY, Judge
On November 12,2013, plaintiff in the above-captioned case, appearing p1q se, filed a
complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff, who is cunently
incarcerated in Colorado state prison, alleges that various federal courts, federal judges, and
federal officials have violated his civil rights, and seeks reliefpursuant to 42 U.S.C. $ 1983.
Specifically, he contends that these courts, judges, and officials have purposefully prevented the
consideration of the merits ofhis claims regarding the conditions ofhis confinement, either by

dismissing his claims for lack ofjurisdiction, rejecting his petition for reliefas incomplete,
dismissing his claims as frivolous, or requiring him to amend his complaint.r This court lacks
jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff s claims and therefore must dismiss his complaint.

'

See. e.g., Hover v. Hickenlooper,

2013

No. l3-CV-01482-BNB, 2013 WL 3353889 (D.
Colo., July 3,2013) (dismissing plaintiff s claims regarding the conditions of his confinement as
legally frivolous); Hover v. Roberts, No. 13-969,2013 WL 5303491 (D.D.C. June 26,2013)
(addressing plaintiff s claims against the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States);
Hover v. Ijickenlooper, No. 1 l -cv-02170-BNB, 2011 WL 6012931 (D. Colo. Dec. 1, 201i7
(dismissing certain claims as legally frivolous); Hover v. Colorado, No. CIVA06-CV01843BNB, 2006 WL 3253680 (D. Colo. Nov. 7, 2006) (requiring plaintiff to amend his complaint).

I.

JURISDICTION

As an initial matter, it is well settled that the United States is the only proper defendant in
the United States Court of Federal Claims ("Court of Federal Claims"). See 28 U.S.C.
$ la9l(a)(1) (providing that the Court ofFederal Claims has jurisdiction over claims against the
United States); R. U.S. Ct. Fed. Cl. l0(a) (requiring that the United States be designated as the
defendant in the Court of Federal Claims); Steohenson v. United States, 58 Fed. Cl. 186, 190
(2003) ("[T]he only proper defendant for any matter before this court is the United States, not its
officers, nor any other individual."). Indeed, thejurisdiction ofthe Court of Federal Claims "is
confined to the rendition of money j udgments in suits brought for that relief against the United
States, . . . and if the relief sought is against others than the United States, the suit as to them
must be ignored as beyond the jurisdiction ofthe court." United States v. Sherwood, 3 l2 U.S.
584, 588 (1941); see also Stumo v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 349,355-56 (1978) (recognizing federal
judges are immune from suit when, "at the time
[thejudge] took the challenged action," the
judge had the authority to act); Imbler v. Pachrman,424 U.5. 409,422-25 (1976) (recognizing
common law immunity for public prosecutors); Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621,624 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) ("The Tucker Act grants the Court ofFederal Claims jurisdiction over suits against the
United States, not against individual federal officials."). Accordingly, the court lacks jurisdiction
over plaintiff s claims against all parties other than the United States.
Moreover, the ability of the Court of Federal Claims to entertain suits against the United
States is limited. Plaintiff s claims generally arise under 42 u.S.c. $ 1983, but the court lacks
jurisdiction to consider claims under that statute. See Jefferson v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 8 I ,
89 (2012) ("[T]he court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over actions arising under
sections of the Civil Rights Acts, including 42 U.S.C. g 1983, g 1985, and g t9S8 (2006) . . . .',);
Marlin v. united states, 63 Fed. cl.475,476 (2005) ("[T]he court does not have jurisdiction to
consider civil rights claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. S$ 19S1, 1983, or 1985 because
jurisdiction over claims arising under the Civil Rights Act resides exclusively in the district
courts."); Blassingame v. United States,33 Fed. Cl. 504,505 (1995) (,,Section 19g3 is not a
jurisdiction-granting statute. District courts are given jurisdiction to hear claims for damages for
violation ofthat provision. . . . Such an action cannot be sustained here, however, because this
court has not been given an equivalent jurisdiction."), affd, 73 F .3d 379 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Plaintiffalso relies upon portions ofthe federal criminal code, but the court does not possess
jurisdiction over criminal matters. see Joshua v. United States, l7 F.3d 379,379-go (Fed. cir.
1994) (affirming that the Court of Federal Claims had "'no iurisdiction to adiudicate anv claims
whatsoever under the federal criminal code"'); Kania v. United States, 650 F.2d 264,26g
et. cl.
l98l) (noting that "the role ofthejudiciary in the high function ofenforcing and policing the
criminal law is assigned to the courts of general jurisdiction and not to this coud"). And,
plaintiffasserts due process and equal protection violations. However, the court lacks
jurisdiction over these claims as well. see LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d t 025, 102g (Fed.
cir. 1995) ("[T]he Due Process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments [and] the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . [are not] a sufficient basis forjurisdiction
because they do not mandate payment of money by the government."); Mullenbers v. united
a

States, 857 F .2d 770,773 (F ed. Cir. 1988) (holding that the due process and equal protection
clauses ofthe Fifth and Fowteenth Amendments "do not trigger Tucker Act jurisdiction in the
courts"). In sum, the court lacks jurisdiction over all of the claims in plaintiff s complaint.

II. APPLICATION TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

As noted above, plaintifffiled, concurrent with his complaint, an application to proceed
in forma pauperis. Courts of the United States are permitted to waive the prepayment or payment
of filing fees and security under certain circumstances.2 28 U.S.C. $ 1915(a)(1). plaintiffs
wishing to proceed in forma pauoeris must submit an affidavit that lists all oftheir assets,
declares that they are unable to pay the fees or give the security, and states the nature of the
action and their beliefthat they are entitled to redress. Id. Further, prisoners must file,.a
certified copy ofthe trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for
the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint . . . obtained from the
appropriate official ofeach prison which the prisoner is or was confined." Id. $ 1915(a)(2).

Plaintiff has substantially satisfied the requirements set forth in section 1915(a). The
court therefore grants plaintiffs application to proceed in forma p4upgris and waives plaintiff s
prepayment of the filing fee. Notwithstanding the court's waiver, prisoners seeking to proceed in
forma pauperis are required to pay, over time, the filing fee in full. Id. $ 191 5(b). Thus, plaintiff
shall be assessed, as a partial payment ofthe court's filing fee, an initial sum of twenty percent of
the greater of (1) the average monthly deposits into his account, or (2) the average monthly
balance in his account for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of his
complaint. Id. $ 1915(bXl). Thereafter, plaintiff shall be required to make monthly payments of
twenty percent of the preceding month's income credited to his account. Id. g l915(b)(2). The
agency having custody of plaintiff shall forward payments from plainti{f s account to the clerk of
the Court of Federal Claims each time the account balance exceeds $10 and until such time as the
filing fee is paid in full. Id.

III.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the court DISMISSES plaintiff s complaint for lack of
jurisdiction. In addition, the court GRANTS plaintiff s application to proceed in forma oauoeris,

'

while the court of Federal claims

is not generally considered to be a "court of the
united states" within the meaning of title 28, the court hasjurisdiction to grant or deny
applications to proceed in forma oauoeris. See 28 U.s.c. $ 2503(d) (deeming the court of
Federal claims to be "a court ofthe United states" for the purposes of section 1915); see also
Matthews v. united states,72Fed. c\.274,277-78 (2006) (recognizing that congress enacred
the Court of Federal Claims Technical and Procedural Improvements A ct of 1992, authorizing
the court to, among other things, adjudicate applications to proceed in forma paqpcli! pursuant to
section l9l5).

-3-

but directs plaintiffto pay the filing fee in full pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 1915(b), as previously
described. No costs. The clerk shall enterjudgment accordingly.

ITIS

SO ORDERED.

-4-