COLBERT v. USA

Filing 4

UNPUBLISHED OPINION and ORDER. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Francis M. Allegra. (dls) Copy to parties.

ORIGINAT
llnT,llt @nite! $ltatuB @ourt of fp[rrut

@luims

No. l3-918 C
This Opinion Will Not Be Published in the U,S. Court of Federal Claims Reporter Because
Does Not Add Significantly to the Body of Law.

(Filed: November 27, 2013)

It

FILED
NO\/ 2

7

2013

ANTONIO COLBERT,
U.S. COURT OF
FEDERALCLAIMS

Plaintiff,

THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant.

OPINION and ORDER
On November 21,2013, Antonio Colbert (plaintif| filed a complaint seeking $500,000 in
compensation relating to the dismissal of a prior complaint by the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia.

This court is solemnly obliged, on its own accord, to address obvious questions conceming
its subject matter jurisdiction. See Mitchell v. Maurer,293 U.S.237,244 (1934). This court
recognizes that plaintiffis acting pro se before this court, and thus the court will hold the form of
plaintiffs submissions to a less stringent standard than those drafted by an attorney. See Reed v.
United Srates,23 CI. Ct.517,521 ( 1991) (citing Estelle v. Gamble,429 U.5.97 (1976)). Having
reviewed plaintiff s complaint, this court is certain that it lacks j urisdiction to consider the claim
that plaintiff raises.

With very limited exceptions, the jurisdictional statutes governing the United States Court
ofFederal Claims grant authority to the court only to issuejudgments for money against the United
States and then, only when they are grounded in a contract, a money-mandating statute, or the
takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. See United States v. Testan,424 U.5.392,397-98
(197 6);28 U.S.C. $ 1491. The only statute really citedby plaintiff in support ofhis jurisdictional
claim - 42 U.S.C. $ 1985 - deals with conspiracies to interfere with civil rights. This statute is not
money-mandating and thus does not provide a basis for this court to exercise jurisdiction. See
May v. United States,2013 WL 3 984993, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 6, 201 3); Moorish Sc ience Temple

of Am. v. {JnitedStates,z}llWL2036714,at*5 (Fed. Cl. May25,2011);Willisv UnitedStates,
96 Fed. Cl. 46'/,470 (2011). It is well-settled that jurisdiction for civil rights claims lies
exclusively inthe district courts. See McCauley v. United States,152 F.3d 948 (Fed. Cir. 1998);
schweitzer v. IJnited states,82 Fed. cl. 592, 595 (2008).
Accordingly, the Clerk shall dismiss plaintiff s complaint for lack ofjurisdiction'

IT IS SO ORDERED.