WOLFE v. USA, No. 1:2014cv00362 - Document 5 (Fed. Cl. 2014)
Court Description: UNREPORTED OPINION and ORDER. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Francis M. Allegra. (dls) Copy to parties.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
ORIOIt'|AI. lln f0,llt @nf te! $ltuttr t ourt of fpf ersl @tsims No. l4-362 C This Opinion Will Not Be Published in the U,S, Court of Federal Claims Reporter Because Does Not Add Significantly to the Body of Law. It (Fited: May 8,2014) FILED JARVIS SIM WOLFE, MAY 8 2014 Plaintiff, U.S. COURT OF FEDGRALCI.AF I'HE LINITED STA'I'ES, Defendant. OPINION and ORDER April 24,2014, plaintiff, Jarvis Sim Wolfe, filed a complaint in which he asked this court to review a complaint that plaintiff allegedly has pending before the Mississippi Commission of Judicial Performancc. The latter complaint appears to address various matters involving the handling of plaintiff s criminal case bythe Mississippi state courts. No further reliefis requested. On This court is solemnly obliged, on its own accord, to address obvious questions conceming its subject matter jurisdiction. See Mitchell v. Maurer,293 U.S. 237,244 (1934). This court recognizes that plaintiff is acling pro se before this court, and thus the court will hold the form of plaintifl's submissions to a less stringent standard than those drafted by an attorney. See Reed v. United States,23 Cl.Ct.517,521 (1991) (citing Estelle v. Gamble,429 U.S. 97 (1976)). Having reviewed plaintifls complaint, this court is certain that it lacks jurisdiction to consider the claim that plaintiff raises. With very limited exceptions, the jurisdictional statutes governing the United States Court ol'Federal CIaims grant authority to the court only to issue judgments for money against the United Slates and then, only when they are grounded in a contract, a money-mandating statute, or the lakings clause of the Fillh Amendment. See United States v. Testan,424 U.5.392,397 -98 (1976);28 U,S.C. $ 1491. This court lacks jurisdiction to entertain general civil rights claims that are not based upon an appropriate money-mandating provision. See, e.g., Sanders v. United Stares,34 Fcd. Cl. 75, 80 (1995), afi'd,104 F.3d 376 (Fed. Cir. 1996), cert. denied,522 U.S. 831 (1997); Martinez v. IJnited States,26 Cl. Ct. 1471,1476 (1992), aff'd,1.1F.3d 1069 (Fed. Cir. I 993). It also does not have jurisdiction to review decisions rendered by state courts. See Potter v. Unired States,108 Fed. Cl. 544,547-48 (2013); Hernandez v. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. 195, 203 (2010). Nor does it otherwise hear claims involving state officials. See 28 U.S.C. $1491; Shew/blt v. United States,104 F.3d 1333, 1337-38 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Harrison v. United Stares, 2014 WL 1006181, at *1 (Fed. Cl. March 12,2014). Accordingly, the Clerk shall dismiss plaintilf s complaint for lack ofjurisdiction. IT IS SO ORDERXD.
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
