GRAVES v. USA, No. 1:2016cv00535 - Document 7 (Fed. Cl. 2016)

Court Description: UNREPORTED OPINION and ORDER denying, as moot, 5 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; and directing the dismissal of plaintiff's complaint, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Victor J. Wolski for Senior Judge Edward J. Damich. (dls) Copy to parties.

Download PDF

GRAVES v. USA Doc. 7 tlR!$l[.ilAt lfutbe @nite[ $ltstes @ourt of /ebprul @lsimg No. 16-535C (Filed: July 5,2016) NOT FOR PUBLICATION *+**************************r(****+** FILED JUL - 5 2016 U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS DONALD GRAVES, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES', Defendant. * rr :t * *! :1. *** + **** {.'1. * {' *' * * * *,t {. *,t * * * *( *,t {. *,} :i. OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE Plaintiff Donald Graves ("Plaintilf '), acting pro se, filed this Complaint on April 27 ,2016. In his Complaint Plaintiff asserts that his confinement in a psychiatric institution violates the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; 42 U.S.C. $$1983 and 1985; and criminal law. See Compl at 1. He requests $500 billion in damages. In response to Plaintiff s Complaint, on June 27, 201 6, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons that follow, the Court dismisses the Comolaint. Standard of Review and Jurisdiction Whether a court possesses jurisdiction is a threshold matter in every case. See Steel Co. v. Citizens Jbr a Better Env't,523 U.S. 83,94-95 (1998). Although pro se pleadings are held to a less stdngent standard than those drafted by a lawyer, Haines, 404 U.S. at 520-21, "a court may not similarly take a liberal view of . . . jurisdictional requirement[s] and set a different rule forprose litigants only." Kelley,812 F.2d at 1380 (emphasis added). This Cou('s jurisdiction comes from the Tucker Acq 28 U.S.C. $ 1491. The Tucker Act limits this Court's jurisdiction to monetary claims "against the United States founded against the United States as well as its "cocorporations" and "employee." The only proper defendant in this Court is the United States. 28 U.S.C. $ I a9l (a)( l)(2012). The Court dismisses the additional defendants and the caption has been properly reflected to indicate such. ' Plaintiff purports to bring suit Dockets.Justia.com either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive depadment, or upon an express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort." 1d at $ l49l(a)(l) (emphasis added). The Tucker Act itself is only ajurisdictional statute that does not create any independent substantive rights enforceable against the United States for money damages. See,e.g.,United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206,216 (\983); United Stotes v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 ( I 976) (citing Eastport S.S. Corp. v. United States, 178 Ct. Cl. 599, 605-607 ( I 967)) ("[T]he [Tucker] Act merely confers jurisdiction upon [this Court] whenever the substantive right exists."). Thus, a plaintiff s claim must be for money damages based on a "moneymandating" source of substantive law. See Jan's Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. FAA,525 F.3d 1299,1309 (Fed. Cir. 2008). If it isnot based on a "money-mandating" source of law, a plaintiffs claim lies beyond this Court's jurisdiction. Metzv. Uniled Stoles, 466 F.3d 991, 997 Ged. Cir.2006). IL Discussion As far as this Court can discern, everything in this Complaint revolves around Plaintiff s confinement in a psychiatric institution due to a criminal conviction. With regard to his confinement, Plaintifffirst claims violations under the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Although this Court has jurisdiction to hear cases under the Fifth Amendment's taking clause, Plaintiffdoes not allege a taking claim. Instead, it appears that he is claiming due process violations as well as cruel and unusual punishment. See generally Compl. However, the due process provisions ofthe Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution and the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment do not mandate the payment of monies and are, therefore, outside this Court's jurisdiction. See LeBlanc v. (Jnited States,50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (the Due Process Clause ofthe Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment is not a sufficient basis forjurisdiction because it does not mandate payment of money by the governmenl); Trafny v. United States, 503 F'3d 1339, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2007)( "Tlhe Court ofFederal Claims does not have jurisdiction over claims arising under the Eighth Amendment, as the Eighth Amendment 'is not a money-mandating provision."') (citations omitted.). Therefore, these claims must be dismissed. Plaintiff furthcr claims civil rights violations under sections 1983 and 1985 of Title 42. These too are outside the jurisdiction of this court as they are not based on any moneymandating provision and must be dismissed. See Ramirez v. United Slales,239 F.App'x 581, 583 (Fed. Cir.2007) (no jurisdiction over civil rights claims based under section 1983 and 1985 of Title 42). And finally, Plaintiff s claims of criminal conspiracy and/or criminal tortious acts, see Comp I , which are also outside the jurisdiction of this Court warranting dismissal as well. See Joshua v. [Jnited States, I 7 F.3d. 3 78, 3 79-80 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (no jurisdiction over criminal matters): Bru'ton v. United States, No. 201 5-5087, 201 5 WL Cir. Oct. 9, 201 5) (unpublished) (no jurisdiction over tort claims). 59 I 5900, at + I (Fed. Although Plaintiff has not specifically requested a transfer of this case to a district court, the Court considers the possibility because Plaintiff is acting pro se. In order to transfer a case, the Court must determine that (l) it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, (2) the case could have been brought in the transferee court at the time the case was filed, and (3) that a transfer is "in the intercst ofjustice." 28 U.S.C. $ 1631. As it does not apPear that there is any plausibl€, non-firtile basis to fansfer Plaintiffs claims to another court, the Court finds that transfening the case would not be in the interest ofjustice. ilI. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, tlre Court finds that Plaintiffs Complaint must be DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because the case is dismisse4 Plaintiff s pending motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DEI:{IED, as moot. The Clerk is directed to dismiss Plaiatiffs Complaint without prejudice. EDWARDJ.DAMICH Senior Judge

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.