RODARTE v. USA

Filing 5

Order of Dismissal. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Marian Blank Horn. (dls) Copy to parties. (Plaintiff served via certified mail; Article No. 7017 1450 0000 1346 3080)

OffisG$NAI
lln tltt @nite! btatts @ourt of fe[trst
*.t

* * * * * * *:t

* * * *:f

@lsfing

* *+

FILED

JOHN E. RODARTE,

JUL

Plaintiff,
No. 17-935
Fifed: July'17,20'17

v,

I

7 20li

U.S. COURT OF
FEDERAL CLAIMS

UNITED STATES,

Defendant.
* r. * rf * * * *,* * 'l' *:i,*

r! r( **

ORDER
The court is in receipt of pro se plaintiff's submission to the United States Court of
Federal Claims on July 12, 2017. Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at Clements Unit in
Amarillo, Texas, has filed this pro se civil action against the United States of America. To
proceed with a civil action in this court, a prisoner must either pay $400.00 in fees-a
$350.00 filing fee plus a $50.00 administrative fee-or request authorization to proceed
in forma pauperis, and submit a Prisoner Authorization Form. See 28 U.S.C. SS 1914,
1915 (2012). When the person submitting a request to proceed in forma pauperis is a
prisoner, 28 U.S.C. S 1915(a)(2) requires that the prisoner submit, along with the affidavit
required by subsection (aX1 ), a certified copy of:

[T]he trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the
prisoner for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the
complaint or notice of appeal, obtained from the appropriate official of each
prison at which the prisoner is or was confined.
28 U.S.C. S 1915(a)(2); see also Matthews v. United States,72Fed.Cl.274,277 (2006),
recons. denied 73 Fed. Cl. 524 (2006). In the affidavit required under 28 U.S.C.
S 1915(aX1), a prisoner must further "state the nature of the action, defense or appeal
and affiant's belief thatthe person is entitled to redress." 28 U.S.C. S 1915(aX1).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C, S 1915(b)(1), if the court grants a prisonels application to
proceed in forma pauperis, the prisoner is still required to pay the full $350.00 filing fee in
this civil action.l See Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521,535 (2011) (28 U.S.C. S 191s(bx1)
requires any prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis to pay the full filing fee out of a
percentage of prisoner's trust account). The court is required by statute to assess and,
when funds exist, collect an initial partial filing fee of twenty percent of the greater of the
average monthly deposits to the prisoner's account orthe average monthly balance in the
prisoner's trust account for the six months immediately preceding the date of the filing of

The $50.00 administrative fee for filing a civil action does not apply to prisoners granted
in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. S 191 5.
1

?El,? l,'r50 0000 139h 308u

the civil action. lf granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, plaintiff is entitled to pay
the filing fee over time through the payment of an initial partial filing fee to be assessed
by the court under 28 U.S.C. S 1915(b)(1) and through periodic payments from the
plaintiffs inmate trust account as authorized in 28 U.S.C. S 1915(bX2).
Plaintiff submitted his complaint to the court without paying the $400.00 filing fee
or submitting an application to proceed in forma pauperis. As a result of this deficiency
with plaintiffs submission to the court. the above-captioned case is DISMISSED, without
prejudice.

Additionally, to the extent plaintiff alleges he is wrongfully imprisoned, this court
notes that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that the
Court of Federal Claims does not have subject matter jurisdiction over actions alleging
unlawful confinement or imprisonment. See Cochran v. United States, 250 F.3d 754
(Fed. Cir. 2000) (affirming lower court's decision that it did not have subject matter
jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim for false imprisonment and unjust conviction). Similarly, it
is well established that this court does not have jurisdiction to hear tort claims against the
United States. See 28 U.S.C. S 1491(a)(1) (2012) ("The United States Court of Federal
Claims shall have jurisdiction . . . in cases not sounding in tort."); see also Keene Corp.
v. United States, 508 U.S. 200,214 (1993) ("[T]ort cases are outside the jurisdiction of
the Court of Federal Claims today."); Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) ("The Court of Federal Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction. lt lacks
jurisdiction over tort actions against the United States."); Kant v. United States, 123 Fed.
cl.6't4,616 (2015).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

ARIAN BLANK HORN
Judge