DORR v. USA

Filing 4

UNREPORTED OPINION dismissing plaintiff's complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Francis M. Allegra. (jb) Copy to parties.

ORIGINAL

.•

Jfn \!!:be Wniteb

~tates

<!Court of jfeberal <!Claims

No. 14-415 C

This Opinion Will Not Be Published in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Reporter Because It
Does Not Add Significantly to the Body of Law.

FILED

(Filed: May 15, 2014)

MAY 1 5 2014
KRISTOPHER DORR,

U.S. COURT Of

FEDERAL CLAIM8
Plaintiff,
v.
THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant.

OPINION and ORDER

On May 14, 2014, plaintiff, Kristopher Dorr, filed a complaint seeking relief under 42
U.S.C . § 1983, for various alleged violations of the U .S. Constitution and other laws. Plaintiff
asserts that the Department of Defense has intercepted various communications between him and
third parties. He seeks unspecified monetary damages, as well as equitable and injunctive relief.
This court is solemnly obliged, on its own accord, to address obvious questions concerning
its subject matter jurisdiction. See Mitchell v. Maurer, 293 U.S. 237, 244 (1934). This court
recognizes that plaintiff is acting pro se before this court, and thus the court will hold the form of
plaintiff's submissions to a less stringent standard than those drafted by an attorney. See Reed v.
United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 517, 521 (1991) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976)). Having
reviewed plaintiff's complaint, this court is certain that it lacks jurisdiction to consider the claim
that plaintiff raises.
With very limited exceptions, the jurisdictional statutes governing the United States Court
of Federal Claims grant authority to the court only to issue judgments 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 .S. 392, 397-98
(1976) ; 28 U .S.C . § 1491. This court lacks jurisdiction over claims predicated upon the Fourth
Amendment, the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment.
See Collins v. United States, 67 F.3d 284, 288 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Roberson v. United States, 115

Fed. Cl. 234, 240 (2014); Hanford v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 111, 119 (2004); Nor does this
court have jurisdiction over claims predicated upon 42 U.S .C. § 1983. See Ganaway v. United
States, 2014 WL 503152 at *2 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Sanders v. United States, 34 Fed. Cl. 38, 48
( 1995). None of the provisions cited provide the requisite money-mandating source of law to
support a case such as this. LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995); see
also Testan, 424 U.S. at 398.
Accordingly, the Clerk shall dismiss plaintiffs complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

2