JARVIS v. USA, No. 1:2017cv00828 - Document 5 (Fed. Cl. 2017)

Court Description: UNREPORTED OPINION and ORDER; granting 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. This opinion was mailed to plaintiff via USPS #7017 1450 0000 1346 0195. Signed by Judge Elaine D. Kaplan. (dw) Copy to parties.

Download PDF

JARVIS v. USA Doc. 5 lJnt[lt @nite! 5tsttg @ourt of fplersl @lsfmg No. 17-828C (Pro Se) (Filed: June 26,2017 | Not for Publication) Keywords: Pro Se Complaint; Freedom of Information Act: Eouitable Relief. DEREKN. JARVIS, Plaintifi FILED JUll 2 t THE LTNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2017 U,S, COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER KAPLAN, Judge. On June 19,2017, pro se plaintiff Derek Jarvis filed a "Complaint for Injunctive Relief." Docket No. 1. In it, Mr. Jarvis states that "[t]his is an action under the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, 5 U.S.C. 552, for Injunctive and other appropriate relief." Compl. g 1. He asserts that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 5 U.S.C. g 552(a)(a)@) and 28 U.S.C. $ 1331 . Id. fl 2. Mr. Jarvis alleges that he submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the United States Social Security Administration for certain records, but that the govemment has not provided those records. Id. flfl 3-4. He therefore seeks an order directing the govemment "to disclose the requested record(s) in their entiret[y]." Id. at 3. Although the government has not yet answered the complaint, the Court may raise subject matter jwisdiction sua sponte at any time. See Arbaueh v. Y&H Com., 546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006) (noting that an objection to federal court subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by a court on its own initiative at any stage in the litigation). "Ifthe court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Rule 12(h)(3) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims; see also Arbaugh, 546 U. S. at 506-07 ,514 (stating that "courts . . . have an independent obligation to determine whether subject matter exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party"). Here, because it is clear from the face of the complaint that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the Court DISMISSES the complaint without prejudice.' I Plaintiffhas also frled a motion for leave proceed to in forma pauperis. Docket No. 4. That motion is hereby GRANTED solely for purposes of dismissing the complaint. Dockets.Justia.com 7Dl,? 1,q50 8000 1,3{b 0135 The Court ofFederal Claims does not have jurisdiction over claims based upon the Freedom of Information Act. See Snowton v. United States, 216 F. App'x 981,983 (Fed. Cir. 2007).In fact, the provision of the Freedom of Information Act cited by Mr. Jarvis, 5 U.S.C. $ 552(a)(aXB), gives the United States District Courts exclusive jurisdiction over such claims. ("On complaint, the district court . . . has jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records . . . ."). Additionally, Mr. Jawis seeks independent equitable relief, in the form of an injunction, and the Court does not have "independent jurisdiction over. . . claims for equitable relief." Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621,624 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Finally, Mr. Jarvis's reference to 28 U.S.C. $ 1331 has no bearing on the Court's jurisdiction, as that statute provides for federal question j urisdiction in the district courts. Accordingly, because the Court plainly lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Jarvis's complaint, the Court hereby DISMISSES the same without prejudice and the Clerk is directed to enterjudgment accordingly.2 IT IS SO ORDERED. )t /r 1A /( /\'-. \JL | --y ELAINE D. KAPLAN Judge 'The Court further determines that because previous courts have noted Mr. Jarvis's "pattem of filing frivolous lawsuits . . . and vexatious filings within those suits," it is not in the interest of justice to transfer Mr. Jarvis's action to any other court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 163 L !4., Jarvis v. Enter. Fleet Servs. & Leasing Co., No. DKC 07-3385, 2010 WL 1068146, at *25 (D. Md. Mar. 17, 2010); see also Order at 1-2, Jarvis v. United States, No. 17-763C (Fed. Cl. June 22, 2017), Docket No. 6; Mem. Op. Granting Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. at 1 n.1, Jarvis v. Colvin, No. TMD 15-2226 (D. Md. Sept. 27,2016), ECF No. 25; Mem. at 1, Jarvis v. Westfield Am.. lnc., No. JKB-15-1808 (D. Md. Sept. 30,2015), ECF No. 24;Mem. Op. at 5, Jarvis v. Gradv Memt.. Inc., No. PJM 13-3853 (D. Md. Jan. 22,2015), ECF No. 86 (and cases cited therein).

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.