DAVIS v. USA

Filing 13

Order of Dismissal granting 9 Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(1) and (6) The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Eric G. Bruggink. (dls) Copy to parties. (Plaintiff served via certified mail; Article No. 7011 0470 0002 5084 3556)

()RIGEI\|AT
lln t\t @nite! $,tutts [.ourt of frDrrul

@ls[mg

No. 16-547C
(Filed; October 7, 2016)

FILED
* * * ,t * * * * * *

'l'

***

,r ,t

***,t,t:t

PRENTISS B. DAVIS,

OCT

- z 2016

U.S. COURT OF
FEDERAL CLAIMS

Plaintffi

THE TINITED STATES,

,t(

* *,* *

Defendant.
ri( J.

*!

* * * * * * * * r t ir r. *:*
ORDER

Plaintiff, appearingpro se, filed a complaint asserting claims against the
Boeing Company ("Boeing") and appealing several Washington stdte court
decisions. Pending is defendant's motion to dismiss onj urisdictional grounds.
It is fully briefed, and oral argument is deemed unnecessary. For the reasons
set out below, defendant's motion is granted.
Jurisdiction is a threshold m atter. see steel Co. v. Citizens
for a Better
Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998). Although plaintiff is appearing pro se, and
pro se litiganrs are afforded latitude, that cannot excusej urisdictional failings.
See Kelly v. U.S. Sec'y of Dep't of Labor, gl2 F.2d 1378, l3g0 (Fed. CIr.
1987) ("a court may not similarly take a liberal view of that jurisdictionar
requirement and set a different rule for pro se litigants only"). It is well-settled
that the united States is the only proper defendant in the united States court
of'Federal Claims. Stephensonv. {Jnited States,5g Fed.Cl. lg6, 190 (2003)
("[T]he only proper def'endant for any matter before this court is the United
States, not its officers, nor any other individual."). As a result, this court
does
not have jurisdiction overplaintiff s claims against Boeing.r

' In a late filing submission, plaintiff attempts to more directly tie the united
(continued...)

?nl,l, Bq70 n00e s08q

Sssh

Plaintiffalso asks this court to exercise its "discretionary reviewn' over
several state court decisions. Only the Supreme Court may review state court
judgments, however. 28 U.S.C. S 1257 (2012). Accordingly, this court also
lacks jurisdiction to review these claims.

This court lacks jurisdiction over any claims raised by plaintiffs
complaint. Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. The Clerk of Court is
directed to dismiss the complaint without prejudice and enter judgment
accordingly. No costs.

t(...continued)
States to his claims. Plaintiff s claims are still fundamentally tort claims, and
the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. $ la9l(a)(l), expressly excludes tort claims from
this court's jurisdiction. Additionally, none of the statutes or Constitutional
provisions plaintiffrelies on can be heard in this court.