DRAKE v. USA, No. 1:2015cv00408 - Document 4 (Fed. Cl. 2015)
Court Description: UNREPORTED OPINION and ORDER directing the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Francis M. Allegra. (dls) Copy to parties.
DRAKE v. USA Doc. 4 0ffi8#$ru&t lln @,Ilt @nftp! 5tsttg @.ourt of feDrrul @tsfms No. 15-408 C This Opinion Will Not Be Published in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Reporter Because Does Not Add Significantly to the Bodv of Law. (Filed: April 23,2015) FILED APR 2 E. DRAKE, It 3 2015 U.S. COURT OF FEDERALCLATMg Plaintiff, SIDNEY A. FITZWATER, er a/., Defendants. OPINION and ORDER On April 22,2015, Eric Drake (plaintiff) filed a complaint seeking $5 million in compensation, as well as various of forms injunctive relief, punitive damages, and other forms of damages. Plaintiff is an African-American male. He contends that he has been discriminated against in a variety ofways. In particular, plaintiff asserts various Federal and State judges in Texas have violated plaintiff s constitutional and civil rights under various Federal statutes, such as 42 U.S.C. $$ 1981, 1983 and 1985. Plaintifialso seeks various damages based upon actions allegedly taken by private corporations and individuals, including private attomeys. This court is solemnly obliged, on its own accord, to address obvious questions conceming its subject matter jurisdiction. See Mitchellv. Maurer,293 U.S.237,244 (1934). This court recognizes that plaintiff is acting pro se before this court, and thus the court will hold the form of plaintiff s submissions to a less stringent standard than those drafted by an attomey. See Reed v. United States,23 Cl.Cr.517,521 (1991) (citing Estelle v. Gamble,429 U.5.97 (1976)). Having reviewed plaintiff s complaint, this court is certain that it lacks jurisdiction to consider the claims that plaintiff raises. With very Iimited exceptions, the jurisdictional statutes goveming the United States Cout 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 takinss clause of the Fifth Amendment. See United States v. Testan" 424 U.5.392.397-98 Dockets.Justia.com 6);25 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 States, 34 Fed. Cl. 75, 80 ( 1995), affd, 104 F.3d 376 (Fed. Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 831 (1997); Martinez v. United States, 26 Cl .Ct. 1471,1476 (1992), affd,11 F.3d 1069 (Fed. Cir. (197 1993). Nor does it hear claims sounding in tort, or claims involving federal, state or local officials. See 28 U.S.C. $ 1491; Brown v. United States, i 05 F.3d 621, 623-24 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Shewfelt v. UnitedStates,l04F.3d 1333, 1337-38 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In particular, this court also lacks jurisdiction over claims against Federal and state judges. see Grffith v. united stqtes,20l5 wL 430285, *2-3 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 30, 2015); Hover v. United States,113 Fed. C|.295'296 (2013)' aff'd, 566 Fed. Appx.918 (Fed. Cir. 2014);see also Stumpv. Sparlonan,435 U.S. 349'355-56(1978). Moreover, to the extent that plaintiff states claims under 42 U.S.C. $$ 1981, 1983, or 1985, it is sufficienttoobservethatthecourtdoesnothavejurisdictionunderanyofthosestatutes.,Se€28 U.S.C. $ l3a6@X1); Jffirsonv. United States,104 Fed. Cl. 81, 89 (2012); Hernandez v United States.93 Fed. Cl. 193, 197-98 (2010); Marlin v. United States,63 Fed. Cl. 47 5, 476 (2005)' Based on the foregoing, this court, therefore, lacks jurisdiction over all claims made by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Clerk shall dismiss plaintilfs complaint for lack ofjurisdiction. IT IS SO ORDERED.