ARNOLD v. USA

Filing 6

Order of Dismissal granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis for the limited purpose of resolving the jurisdictional question in this case; and directing the Clerk to enter judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Nancy B. Firestone for Senior Judge Edward J. Damich. (dls) Service on parties made. (Plaintiff served via certified mail; Article No. 7016 3010 0000 4308 4256)

0l

E'.jIe,qAt
lJntbt @nite! Stu tts tourt of frbns[

@[sfmg

No. l8-278
(Filed: March 5,2018)
* * * * * * * * :*,t l. :t * *'t * * * * * *

+

********+**++*

FILED
MAR

DONALD EUGENE ARNOLD,

-

5

2018

U.S. COURT OF
FEDERAL CLAIMS

Plaintiff,
v.

THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
l.

*

:i

**************

:f :i

**

:i

***

+ + *,1.

******

*,r

ORDER DISMISSING CASE
Before this Court is the Complaint of pro se plaintiff, Donald^ Eugene Amold
("plaintiff') filed on February 20,2018,t In the Complaint, Plaintiffl, alleges that the
federal govemment violated his civil rights and deprived "his natural born native

citizenship as a Freeman" under Section 1983 and the Thirteenth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution. Compl. fl l, 15. Furthermore, the Plaintiff alleges that
the federal govemment unlawfully used his birth certificate and social security number to
"deceive into corporate 'bondage' and'involuntary servitude."' Compl. tl 8-10.
A pro se plaintiff s pleadings are generally held to "less stringent standards" than
those ofa professional lawyer. Haines v. Kerner,404 U.S.519,520-21 (1972) (requiring
that allegations contained in a pro se complaint be held to "less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"). However, the Court cannot extend this leniency
to relieve plaintiffs of their jurisdictional burden. Kelley v.Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Labor,8l2
F.2d 1378, 1380(Fed.Cir. 1987). Whether a court has jurisdiction is a threshold matter
in every case. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't,523 U.S. 83,94-95 (1998). "lf
the Court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must
dismiss the action." Rule l2(hX3) ofthe Rules of the United States Court ofFederal
Claims ("RCFC"); See also Arctic Corner, Inc. v. United States,845 F.2d 999, 1000
I Also on February 20, 2018, Plainliff filed a motion to proceed informa
pauperis. PlaintifFs filing fee is waived for the limited purpose of resolving the

jurisdictional question in this case.
2
Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the Toledo Conectional Institution, Toledo,
Ohio.

qa5h
?01,h 301,t1 0000 q306

(Fed. Cir. 1988) C'A court may and should raise the question of its jurisdiction sua sponte
at any time it appears in doubt.").

This Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs civil rights claims. Plaintiffbrings
this action under 42 U.S.C. $ 1983 and the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Construing the pleading liberally, as required by Haines,404 U.S. at 520, it appears that
Plaintilf is bringing this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. However, it is
well settled that the Court ofFederal Claims does not possess jurisdiction over civil rights
claims brought under the Civil Rights Act. Rather, the United States District Courts have
exclusive jurisdiction over claims under that act. Taylor v. UnitedStetes,3l0 Fed. Appx.
390, 393 (Fed. Cir. 2009)("Because Title VII vests jurisdiction over discrimination
claims exclusively in the district court, the Court ofFederal Claims cannot exercise
jurisdiction over those claims.".1.r Therefore the Court dismisses the civil righls claims
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Court then tums to Plaintiff s claims of bondage and involuntary servitude.
Pursuant to the Tucker Act, the Court ofFederal Claims does not have jurisdiction over
claims sounding in tort. 28 U.S.C. $ 1491(a)(l); See also Brown v. United States, 105
F.3d621,623 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("[The Court of Federal Claims] lacks jurisdiction over
tort actions against the United States."). Because Plaintifl s claims of bondage and
involuntary servitude all sound in tort, this Court does not possess subject matter
jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff s claim.
For the reasons set forth above, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and the
Clerk is directed to DISMISS the case and enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

for
EDWARD J. DAMICH
Senior Judge

Plaintiff also alleges this Court has jurisdiction under 28 LJ.S.C. $ I 33 I and
1343, however, Plaintiff is incorrect as both ofthese sections vest jurisdiction in district
courts rather than the Court ofFederal Claims. ("The District courts shall have original
jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties."). $ 133 1 ;
see also 28 U.S.C. $13a3(a)(3). Therefore, Plaintiffs claims for declaratory and
injunctive reliefare also dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction.
3