CARTER v. USA

Filing 7

UNREPORTED OPINION; Plaintiff's complaint is sua sponte, DISMISSED pursuant to RCFC 12(h)(3) for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that this Court has jurisdiction
over its claims. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 51 1 U.S. 375,377 (1994).

III.

Discussion

In this case, Ms. Carter fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that this
Court has jurisdiction over her claims. The Tucker Act does not provide this Court with
jurisdiction to entertain collateral attacks on decisions offederal district or circuit courts. 28
U.S.C. g 149i(a); see, e.g.,shinnecocklndianNationv. UnitedStates,782F.3d1345,1352
(Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Binding precedent establishes that the Court of Federal Claims has no
jurisdiction to review the merits of a decision rendered by a federal district court."). Therefore,
Ms. Carter's request to review the other Courts' decisions falls outside of this Court's
jurisdiction, and her Complaint must be dismissed.
Regarding the demand to imprison defendants for alleged crimes, this Court lacks
jurisdiction o'u"r plui.rtiffls demand that it imprison the alleged offenders, as such relief is not
related to money damages. See United States v. Sherwood,3l2 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) (stating
that the jurisdiction of United States Court of Federal Claims is "confined to the rendition of
money judgements"). This Court also lacks jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff s Bivens claim'
-Birirt,the
Supreme Court held that, in certain situations, a plaintiff may bring claims
Undei
against government officials in their individual capacities for violations of constitutional rights.
Sie Brownv. United States,105 F.3d 621,624 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing Bivens,403 U.S. 388)'
However, the Tucker Act does not provide this Court with jurisdiction over claims against
individual federal officials. /d ("[I]ts jurisdiction is confined to the rendition of money
judgments in suits brought for thai relief against the United States, . . . and if the relief sought is
ugui"rt others than the United States the suit as to them must be ignored as beyond the

jurisdiction of the court.")'
Additionally, Ms. Carter's First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment claims
of the Fifth
are not properly beiore this Court. With the exception of the Takings Clause
these amendments are not
Amendment, a provision which is not pertinent to this Complaint,
States v.
money-mandating and therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. See United
connolly,T16Fidgg2, gg7 (Fed. cir. 1983) ("[T]he fF]irst [A]mendment, standing alone,
Brown,105
cannot be so interpreted to command the payment of money.") (citations omitted);
therefore such
F.3d at 623 (holding that the Fourth Amendment does not mandate payment and
Carruth v. United States,
claims are not within the jurisdiction of the court) (citations omitted);
62j F.2d 1068, 1081 (Ct. Cl. 1980) (finding no jurisdiction based on Fifth Amendment Due
process or Equal Protection) ; Milas v. Uniied States, 42 Fed. Cl' 704,710 (1999) (holding that
Amendment is not
the Court lacks jurisdiction over Sixth Amendment claims because the Sixth
v. United
money-mandating) (citations omitted), aff'd,217 F.3d 854 (Fed. cir. 1999); Kortlander
jurisdiction over Fourteenth
sturc;,107 Fed. cl. 3sz, 369 (2012) (holding that the Court lacks
Amendment claims because the Fourteenth Amendment is not money-mandating).
The Court also lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff s statutory claims against the United
States. Ms. Carter alleges vi,olations of 42 U'S.C' $$ 1983, 1986 and 18 U'S'C' $$ 241,242'but
See
only federal district .orrlnr have jurisdiction to hear claims alleging such violations.
have
Schweitzer v. rJnited States,82 Fed. Cl. 592,595 (2008) ("[T]his Court does not

jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' civil rights claims brought under 42 U.S.C. $$ 1981, 1985, or
1986 (2000), because it is well-settled that jurisdiction over such claims lies exclusively in the
*2 (Fed. Cl' Feb. 4,
district courts."); Jones v. [Jnited States,No. 15-1044C,20i6 WL 447144, at
2016) ("[W]e do not have jurisdiction over plaintiff s alleged violation of civil rights
acts . . . because those statutes do not provide for the payment of money.").
Furthermore, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear plaintiff s tort claims. The Tucker Act
explicitly excludes tort claims against the United States from this Court's jurisdiction. "It is well
r.ttl"d that the United States Court of Federal Claims lacks-and its predecessor the United
States Claims Court lacked-jurisdiction to entertain tort claims ." Shearin v. United States,992
F.2d 1195, 1197 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also Sellers v. (Jnited States,l10 Fed. Cl. 62,66 (2013)'
Here, Ms. Carter alleges that the defendants are responsible for her "[p]hysical and
emotional injuries" as a result of a violation of ADA and ADAAA, and suffering from
defendants' abuse ofprocess, breach ofassumed duty, breach offiduciary duty, conspiracy,
generally
constructive fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence' See
jurisdiction. See, e.g.,
Compl. These claims sound in tort and, thus, are outside of this Court's
(Fed. Cir' 1998)
McCauley v. United States,38 Fed. Cl. 250, 266 (1997), of'd,152 F.3d 948
claim because district
(holding ihut th. Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction over an ADA
(Inited States,l05 Fed. Cl'213,218
courts have exclusive jurisdiction over such claims); Coxv.
LLC v'
(2012) (finding fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty sounded in tort); Kenney Orthopedic,
distress"
jurisdiction on "emotional
United States,g3 Fed. Cl. 35, 46 (holding the court has no
(2004) (stating that conspiracy, fraud, and
claims); Gant v. (lnited Statei:s,63 Fed. Ct. :t 7,376
negligence sounded in tort).

pauperis along with
As noted above, Ms. Carter filed an application to proceed informa
federal courts are permitted to
her Complaint on January 2,20Ig. Pursuantio 28 U.S.C. $ 1915,
The statute requires
waive filing fees under certain circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. $ 1915(a)(1).
o"unable to pay
To be
that an uppli"unt be "unable to pay such fees." 28 U.S.C. $ 1915(aX1).
serious hardship on the plaintiff'"
such fees, means that paying ,u"h f.., would constitute a
v. United States' 93 Fed'
Fiebelkornv. (lnited ititurln Fed. Cl. 59,62 (2007); see also Moore
for Leave to Proceed informa
Cl. 41 I,414-15 (2010). For good cause shown, plaintiff s Motion
pauperis is granted.

IV.

Conclusion

DISMISSED
For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff s complaint rs, stta sponte,
Proceed in forma
to
pursuant to RCFC L2(hX3) for lack ofjurisdiction. Plaintiff s Motion
'pauperisis
directed to enter judgment consistent with
hereby CniNffO. The itert is hereby
this opinion.