CRANE v. USA, No. 1:2014cv01190 - Document 3 (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[
CRANE v. USA Doc. 3 0RtG!!\lAt lln0lt:t @nfte! $itutts @ourt of /e[trul @luimg No. 14-1190 C This Opinion Will Not Be Published in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Reporter Because Does Not Add Significantly to the Body of Law' (Filed: December 12,2014) FILED DEC BRYAN O, CRANE, It 12 2014 I],S. COURT OF FEDEF]AL CLAIMS Plaintiff, THE TNITED STATES, Defendant. OPINION and ORDER On December 10,2014, plaintiff, Bryan O. Crane, filed a complaint asserting that the Federal Employees' compensation Act (FECA), and the administration thereof by the United States Department ofLabor, violated plaintiffs rights to due process and equal protection under the Unitea States Constitution. In his complaint, plaintiff asserted that the govemment personnel assigrred to administer FECA are "lawless, corrupt, arrogant, and abusive." In addition, plaintiff u$".t"d thut th" Department ofLabor's Office of Inspector General has failed to pursue criminal activity and serious misconduct on the part of Department of Labor personnel, in particular subjeciing plaintiff to "extreme physical, financial, and mental abuse." Plaintiff contends that he is entitled t-o various damages, including mental, physical and emotional damages in the amount of $ 100 million. This court is solemnly obliged to address obvious questions conceming its subject matter jurisdiction. See Mitchell v. Maurer,293 U.S. 237,244 (1934). This court recognizes.that pluitttiff ir acting pro se before this court, and thus the court will hold the form of plaintiffs submissions to i less stringent standard than those drafted by an attorney. See Reed v United states.z3 Cl. Ct. 51?, 521 (1991) (citing Estelle v. Gamble,429 U.S. 97 (1976)). Having reviewed plaintiffs complaint, the court is certain that it lacks jurisdiction to consider the claims that plaintiff raises. Dockets.Justia.com With very limited exceptions, the jurisdictional statutes goveming the United States Court ofFederal Claims grant authority to the court only to issuejudgments for money against the United States and then, only when they are grounded in a contract, a money-mandating statute, or the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. See United States v. Testan,424 U.5.392,397'98 (1976);28 U.S.C. $ 1a91(a)(1). This court lacks jurisdiction over claims predicated upon the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment. SeeCollinsv. tJnited States,67 F.3d284,288 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Roberson v. United States, 115 Fed. Cl. 234, 240 (2014); Hanford v. United States,63 Fed. Cl. 1 1 l, I l9 (2004); aff'd, l54F.App'x216(Fed.Cir.2005),cert.denied,549U.S. l34l(200'1). Nordoesthiscourthave jurisdiction over claims predicated upon the Equal Protection clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. See LeBlanc v. United States,so F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Scrase v' UnitedStates,ll8 Fed. C\.35'7,361-62(2014);Jironv. UnitedStates,ll8 Fed. Cl. 190' 199 (2014). Finally, to the extent that plaintiffs claims sound in tort, this court also lacks jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. $ l49l(a)(l); -riron, 118 Fed. Cl. at 200; Zhao v. United States, 91 Fed' Cl' 95' 99-100 (2010). Having reviewed the remainder of plaintiff s complaint, the court does not believe that it has jurisdiction over the remainder ofplaintiffs claims. Accordingly, the Clerk shall dismiss plaintiff s complaint for Iack of iurisdiction. IT IS SO ORDERED. t///L----
]]>
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.
