SANDFORD v. USA

Filing 5

Order granting 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; and directing the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Senior Judge Loren A. Smith. (dls) Service on parties made. (Plaintiff served via certified mail; Article No. 7017 1450 0000 1346 2151)

OR$ffiEruAL
@nite! $tafts @ourt of felnsl @tuims
No. 18-787 C
Filed: June 14,2018

FILED

CHARLI]S BENJAMIN SANDFORD,

JUN

Plaintiff,

I{

zOE

U.S. COURT OF
FEDERAL Clj|MS

THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant.

ORDER
On May 31 2018, plaintiff, proceedingpro se, filed a complaint seeking damages caused
by various alleged offenses committed by state and local ofhcials. In his Complaint, plaintiff
alleges, inter a/la, that New Jersey law enforcement officials harassed, kidnapped, and defrauded
him, trespassed on and unlawfully searched his automobile, and caused him emotional distress.
Complaint (hcrcinafter "Compl.") at 2, 3. In addition to his Complaint, plaintiff has filed a
motion to proceed informa pouperis.
This Court's authority to hear cases is primarily defined by the Tucker Act, which grants
this Court subjeclmatter jurisdiction over claims against the United States of America that are
founded on a money-mandating source of law and do not sound in tort. 28 U.S.C. $ 1491(a)(1).
The Rules ofthe Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC") state that "[i]fthe court determines at any
time that it lacks subject-matler jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." RCFC 12(hX3).
Pleadings from pro se plaintiffs are held to more lenient standards than pleadings drafted by
attorneys. Ilughes v. Rowe,449 U.S. 5,9 (1980). However, "[d]espite this permissive standard,
apro se plainliff must still satisfy the [C]ourt's jurisdictional requirements" for the Court to
entertain plaintiffs claims. See Trevino v. United States,1l3 Fed. Cl. 204' 208 (2013)
(referencing Bernard v. Uniled States,59 Fed. Cl. 497,499 (2004) ("This latitude . does not
relieve apro se plaintiff from meeting jurisdictional requirements.") (emphasis added)). Pro se
or not, each plaintiff carries the burden ofestablishing by a preponderance ofthe evidence that
this Court has jurisdiction over its claims. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,5lllJ.S.
37s,377 (1994).

.

l)pon sua sponte review, this Court finds that plaintiff s allegations are tortious in nalure.
Further, plaintiff s complaint pertains to the State of New Jersey, and officials working on behalf
of or employed by the State of New Jersey or its municipalities. Compl. at 2, 3. The Court has
no jurisdiction over state actions, state officials, or private citizens. 28 U.S.C. $ 1491(a)(l).
This Court's sole jurisdiction is over the United States of America and actions taken by federal
officials generally concerning money or its equivalenls in property. 1d Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $

701? 1'+50 000n l,3qE er5l,

l49l(aXl), plaintiffs complaint

does not give rise to any cause of action for which this Court

has subject-matter jurisdiction. Thus, this Court has no authority to decide plaintiffs
must dismiss the complaint pursuant to RCFC l2(hX3).

case, and

For good cause shown, plaintiffs application to proced informa pauperis is
GRANTED. For the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs Complunt is, sua sponte, DISMISSED
pursuant to RCFC l2OX3) for lack of subject-matterjurisdiction. The Cletk of Court is hereby
directed to enterjudgrnent consistent with this Opinion.

IT IS SO ORI'ERED.
Loren A, Smith