SANDFORD v. USA

Filing 6

Order of Dismissal. Granting 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis;.The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Loren A. Smith. (ew) Service on parties made.

$ffif,ffirruA1
@nitr! $ltatts @ourt

of

felers[

No. l8-849 C
Filed: June 19, 201 8

CHARLES BENJAMIN SANDFORD,

@lsims

FILED
JUN I I 2018
U.S. COUBT OF
FEDERAL CI-AIMS

Plaintifl

]'HE LINITED STATES,
Defendant.

ORDER
On June 14,2018, this Court dismissed Sandford v. United States Qr{o. 18-787), .saa

sponte,for lack ofjurisdiction. On June 13,2018, this Court received a complaint in this directly
related case, Sandford v. United States (l.io. l8-849). Due to the natur e of prose filings, this
Court did not receive notice of this directly-related Complaint until after issuing its dismissal in
SandJbrd v. United States (No. l8-787), suo sponte. As the original case has already been
dismissed, the Court will now deal with this case directly.
In the case at bar, plaintiff, proceedingpro se, is seeking damages caused by various
alleged off'enses committed by state and local officials. In his Complaint, plaintiff alleges, ir?/e/
a/ia, that New Jersey law enfbrcement and judicial olficials assaulted, kidnapped, and defrauded
him, trespassed on and unlawfully searched his grandmother's automobile, unlawfully anested
him, and subjected him to threat, duress, and coercion. Complaint (hereinafter "Compl.") at 2,3 .
In addition to his Complaint, plaintiff has filed a motion to proceed in Jbrma paupefis.

'l'his Court's authority to hear cases is primarily
defined by the Tucker Act, which grants
this Court subject-matter 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. $ 1a9l(a)(l)
(2012). The Rules ofthe Court ofFederal Claims ("RCFC") state that "[i]fthe [C]ourt
determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the [C]ourt must dismiss the
action." RCFC 12(hX3). Pleadings from pro.re plaintiffs are held to more lenient standards than
pleadings drafted by attomeys. Ilughes v. Rowe,449 U.S.5,9 (1980). However, "[d]espite this
permissive standard, apro se plaintiff must slill satisfy the [C]ourt's jurisdictional requirements"

fortheCourttoentertainplaintiflsclaims.,SeeTrevinov.UnitedSlates,ll3Fed.Cl.204,2Os

(2013) (rcf-erencing Bernard v. United States,59 Fed. Cl. 497,499 (2004) ("This latitude. . .
does not relieve a pro.re plaintiff from meeting jurisdictional requirements.") (emphasis added)).
Pro se or noI, each plaintiff carries the burden ofestablishing by a preponderance of the evidence
that this Court has jurisdiction over its claims. Kokkanen v. Guardian LiJb Ins. Co. of Am.,5l1
u.s. 37s, 377 (1994).

Upon sua sponte review, this Court finds that plaintiffls allegations are tortious in nature.
Further, plaintilf s Complaint pertains to the State of New Jersey and offrcials working on behalf
of or employed by the State of New Jersey or its municipalities. Compl. at2,3. 'l'he Court has

nojurisdictionoverstateactions,stateofficials,orprivatecitizens.28U.S.C.$1a91(a)(1).
This Court's sole jurisdiction is over the United States of America and actions taken by federal
of'flcials generally concerning money or its equivalcnts in property. 1d. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 6
l49l(a)(l), plaintiff s Complaint does not give rise to any cause ofaction for which this Cou(
has subj ect-matter jurisdiction. Thus, this Cou( has no authority to decide plaintiff s case, and
must dismiss the complaint pursuant to RCFC l2(hX3).
For good cause shown, plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis is
GRANTED. For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff s Complaint is, sua sponte, DISMISSED
pursuant to RCFC 12(hX3) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Clerk ofCourt is hereby
directed to enterjudgment consistent with this Opinion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4;4^'
Senior Judge

(