GOFORTH v. USA

Filing 21

UNREPORTED ORDER: Granting 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; Granting 8 Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(1) and (6) The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Nancy B. Firestone. U.S. Certified Mail Tracking# 7018 0040 0001 1393 1211(vds) Service on parties made.

3Jn tbe Wniteb $1ates QCourt of ,:Jfeberal QClaints
No. 18-507C
(Filed: March 1, 2019)

VIRGINIA ARLENE GOFORTH,

Pro Se Plaintiff,
V.

THE UNITED STA TE S,
Defendant.

_ _ _ __ __ _ _

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Pro Se ; Dismissal for Lack of Subject
Matter Jurisdiction; Rule 12(b)(l).

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On April 4, 2018, plaintiff, Ms. Goforth, filed her complaint in this court
alleging that the United States Supreme Court "denied and violated her constitutional
rights," when the Supreme Court denied her petition for certiorari without providing a
reason. Compl. at 1. Ms . Goforth alleges that the United States Supreme Court's
decision to deny the writ of ce1tiorari, without providing a reason for the denial, is a
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, because
"[t]his practice is discriminatory toward the litigants wh[ o] receive a denial." Compl.
Att. B at 2 (Doc. 1-3 at 2).
Ms. Goforth's complaint arises from litigation she filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia claiming damages under the

7018 0040 0001 1393 1211

Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the

Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 395-97 (1971) stemming from her time in
federal prison. Ms. Goforth contends that the District Court erred in dismissing her
case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit erred in affirming the
District Comt's dismissal of her case, see also Goforth v. Lappin, 643 F. App'x 270
(4th Cir. 2016) (per curiam); and the Supreme Court violated her constitutional rights
when on April 3, 2017, the United States Supreme Comi denied her writ of ce1tiorari
without stating a reason. See Goforth v. Kane, 137 S. Ct. 1444 (2017).
The government on June 7, 2018 moved to dismiss Ms. Goforth's complaint
under Rule 12(b)(l) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims. (Doc.
No. 8). The government argues in support of its motion that the complaint must be
dismissed because this court "does not have jurisdiction [to] review the decision[s] of
the [United States] Supreme Court, federal appellate courts, or federal district comis."
Def. 's Mot. to Dismiss at 4 (citing Allustiarte v. United States, 256 F .3d 1349, 1352
(Fed. Cir. 2002); Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 379 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). The
government further argues that this court also lacks jurisdiction to hear Ms. Goforth's
constitutional claims because the Due Process Clause is not money mandating. Id. at 5
(citing LeBanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). The
government also argues that to the extent Ms. Goforth alleges a tort claim or Bivens
claim, this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction. Id. (citing US. Marine, Inc.

v. United States, 722 F.3d 1360, 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (the Court of Federal
Claims does not have jurisdiction over tort claims) and Brown v. United States, 105
2

F.3d 621,624 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction
over Bivens claims)).
The government argues in the alternative that Ms. GoForth's claims are also
ban-ed by the doctrine of res judicata. Apparently, Ms. Goforth was also litigating
identical claims before the Western District of North Carolina which she lost on
August 14, 2015. See Goforth v. United States, No. 1:09-0003, 2015 WL 4878381
(S.D. W.Va. Aug. 14, 2015).
Ms. Goforth responds that because her claim is based upon the Constitution,
this court has the authority to remand the case back to the Supreme Court. Pl. 's Resp.
at 2 (Doc. No. 15). Ms. Goforth explains that she is not asking for review of her
original case and argues that because the Supreme Court did not grant certiorari, she is
not seeking review of any Supreme Court decision. Id. at 3.
The court agrees with the government that Ms. Goforth's case must be
dismissed. Under the Tucker Act, 48 U.S.C. § 1491, a plaintiff must identify a
substantive right for money damages to maintain a claim before this court. The United
States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that the Due Process Clause is
not money-mandating and thus is not a "sufficient basis for jurisdiction." LeBlanc, 50
F.3d at 1028. The Federal Circuit has also held that this court does not have
jurisdiction over tort or Bivens claims. U.S. Marine, Inc., 722 F.3d at 1363; Brown,
105 F.3d at 624. In addition, to the extent Ms. Goforth's complaint is construed as
seeking a review of the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari or review of the decisions
reached by the Western District of North Carolina District Court or the Fourth Circuit

3

Court of Appeals, the court also agrees with the government that this com1 lacks
jurisdiction to review those decisions. See Allustiarte, 256 F.3d at 1352. 1
CONCLUSION

Because this court does not have jurisdiction over Ms. Goforth's complaint, the
government's June 7, 2018 Motion To Dismiss is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is
directed to dismiss the April 4, 2018 Complaint for lack of jurisdiction under Rule
12(b)(l) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims. 2
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Ms. Goforth filed a sur-reply on January 2, 2019 (Doc. No. 17) arguing that this court has
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(2). 28 U.S.C. § 1254(2) states that "[c]ases in the courts of
appeals may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by the following methods: ... By certification
at any time by a comi of appeals of any question of law .... " (emphasis added). This argument
is meritless.
1

Ms. Gof01ih's motion for leave to file informa pauperis filed on April 4, 2018 (Doc. No. 4)
is GRANTED for the purposes of this motion.

2

4