HAMILTON v. USA

Filing 5

UNREPORTED OPINION denying 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Nancy B. Firestone. (dw) Copy to parties.

ORI[' INAL
lJntbt @nftr! $rtatts @ourt

of

frDers[ @Isims

No. 17-1026 C
(Filed: August 7 ,2017)
NOT FORPUBLICATION
)
)
)
)
)

ETISHA HAMILTON.
Pro Se Plaintiff,

)

Pro

Dismissal; Lack of
Subject Matter of Jurisdiction; Claims
Against State Officials and Asencies
Se; Sua Sponte

FILED

)
)
)
)
)
)

THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant.

AU6

- 7 2017

U.S. COURT OF
FEDERAL CLAIMS

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The complaint in this case was filed by plaintiff Etisha
Hamilton proceedingpro
se on July

28,2017. Ms. Hamilton alleges that in2013,she resigned from
herjob at the

city of Houston Public Library after her co-workers

.,got

together and started cailing

[her] a lesbian" and "announced [she] was a lesbian to the whore city.,,
compr. at

l.

subsequently, Ms. Ham ton alreges that the "govemment
ordered this technology that
transmitted people's voices to me."

Id. rn 2014,, Ms. Hamilton

states that she was

arrested during that time "porice officers . . . said
that everybody [had] seen my life

history, could hear my private thoughts, see my visions,
and hear what I say verbally at a
whisper or out loud'"

pregnant.

Id.

Id.

Ms. Hamilton alreges that at the time she was arrested,
she was

After "heavy vaginal bleeding," the government .,made
prison medical

professionals tell me I'm not pregnant,"
but that in fact she was pregnant for the entirety

of her three-year prison sentence.

Id.

Ms. Hamilton requests relie f in the form of a
court

order for an emergency C-section, for the government to remove the technology that
transmits other people's thoughts to her, and for compensation for her pain and suffering.
For the reasons explained below, the court has determined that jurisdiction is

lacking over all of plaintiffs claims. Accordingly, under Rule l2(h)(3) of the Rules of the
United States Court of Federal Claims (,,RCFC'), the action is DISMISSED.

I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The jurisdiction of this court is set forth in the Tucker Act, which grants the
court

.iurisdiction to hear claims against the united states founded upon,,any Act of congress
or any regulation ofan executive department . . . or for liquidated or
unliquidated
damages in cases not sounding in

tort."

2g

u.s.c. g la91(a)(1). However,

because the

Tucker Act "does not create any substantive right enforceable
against the United States

for money damages,"

a

plaintiff must also rely on a relevant money-mandating
federal

statute, regulation, or provision of the Constitution in
order to establish jurisdiction.

United States v. Testan, 424 U .5. 392,39g (1976).

"courts have an independent obligation to determine
whether subject-matter
jurisdiction exists . . ." Hertz Corp. v.
'
Friend,s59 u.s.

77

, 94

(2010). If the court

lacks jurisdiction, it cannot proceed with
the action and must dismiss the case. Arbaugh

v' Y&H corp.,546 u.s. 500, 514 (2006). Even if neither
party chalrenges subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must evaluate the existence
ofsubject matter jurisdiction for itself.

Id' at 506. Rule of the court of Federar claims l2(h)(3) provides: .,If
the court
determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction,
the court must dismiss the

action."

In determining whether subject matter jurisdiction exists, the court will take
factual allegations in the complaint as true and

will

construe them in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff. Estes Express Lines v. (Jnited States,739 F.3d 689, 692 (Fed.

Cir. 2014). In addition, the pleadings of pro se plaintiffs will be held ..,to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."' Johnson v. United States, 4l

App'x

I

F.

303, 305 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Haines v. Kerner,404 U.S. 5t9,520 (t972)).

However, the court's leniency

will not relieve

the burden on apro se plaintiff to meet

jurisdictional requirements. Minehanv. United States, 75 Fed. C\.249,253 (2007).

I

DISCUSSION

In order to avoid dismissal, the plaintiff must still demonstrate that her claims fall
within the court's jurisdiction and that substantive law creates

a

right to money damages.

Fisher v. United states,4O2 F.3d 1167,1172 (Fed. cir. 2005). As discussed below, this
court finds that none

ofplaintiffs claims fall within

that jurisdictional grant.

The court of Federal claims only has jurisdiction to hear claims against the

United States. United states v. sherwood,3 l2 u.s. 5g4, 5gg (1941) (explaining that the

court's'Jurisdiction is confined to the rendition of money judgments in suits brought for
that reliefagainst the United States, . . . and if the relief is against others than the
United
states the suit as to them must be ignored as beyond the jurisdiction of the court.,').
As

this court explained in Anderson v. {Inited states, the court ofFederal claims lacks
'Jurisdiction over any claims alleged against states, localities, state and local government
entities, or state and local government officials and employees; jurisdiction only
extends

to suits against rhe united States itself." I l7 Fed. cl. 330, 331 (2014). Therefore.
this

court lacks jurisdiction over all claims against parties other than the United States and all
claims against those parties must be dismissed. In this case, though not entirely clear,

plaintiff appears to be bringing her claims against the city of Houston Public Library and
state law enforcement officials, not the federal government. Accordingly, the court lacks

jurisdiction over Ms. Hamilton's claims against these actors.
Even if Ms. Hamilton intended to name federal law enforcement as the defendant
in this action, she still has not identified a money-mandating statute as a source ofthis

court's subject-matter jurisdiction. The only federal statute Ms. Hamilton cites is tne
Federal Privacy Act

of 1974,5 u.s.c. g 552a. However, this court

does not have

jurisdiction over violations ofthe Privacy Act, which "'expressly vests jurisdiction for
such claims in the United states District

courts."' Addington v. united

states, 94 Fed.

cl.7'79,'t84 (2010) (quotingparkerv. United states,77 Fed.cl.27g,2gl-92(2007)
aff'd,280 Fed. Appx.957 (Fed. Cir.2008) (unpublished);5 U.S.C. g 552a(g)(t)).

III.

CONCLUSION

For all of the above-stated reasons, plaintiff s complaint is DISMISSED in
accordance with RCFC l2(hX3) for lack

judgment accordingly.

ofjurisdiction. The clerk is directed to enter

I

IT IS SO ORDERED.

B. FIRESTO
Senior Judge

' Ms. Hamilton's motion to proceed in.forma pauperis, Docket No. 4, is DENIED AS Moor.