WARREN v. USA, No. 1:2017cv01885 - Document 6 (Fed. Cl. 2017)
Court Description: UNREPORTED OPINION: DENIED as MOOT 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Victor J. Wolski. U.S. Certified Mail Tracking# 7017 1450 0000 1346 0454(vds) Service on parties made.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
WARREN v. USA Doc. 6 ORIGINAL lfn tbe Wniteb ClCourt of jfeberal ClClaims No. 17-1885C (Filed December 20, 2017) NOT FOR PUBLICATION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ALAN DALE WARREN, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. * * * * * * * * * * FILED DEC 2 O 2017 U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER This case was filed pro se on December 4, 2017, by Alan Dale Warren, an inmate in a Texas state prison. See generally ECF No. 1. On December 12, 2017, the Clerk's office received another package of materials from plaintiff, which was not filed when received because it was not apparent that the package contained t he sort of p aper recognized by t his court's rules for filing, such as a pleading, motion, or brief, see Rule 7 of t h e Rules of the United States Com·t of Federal Claims (RCFC). A r eview of these materials shows that t he package consists of one handwritten, signed paper from the plaintiff referencing this lawsuit and additional allegations; a copy of a h a ndwritten page, presumably by the plaintiff, wh ich discusses administrative procedures for raising grievan ces with prison officials; and four grievance forms he submitted to prison authorities. It appears that Mr. Warren is trying to amend his original complaint with this supplemental m aterial. Thus, the Clerk's office shall treat t his package as an amendment to t he complaint and file it as such. Beca use of the r eview necessitated by t he receipt of t hese supplemental materials, the Court has had the opportunity to determine whether Mr. Warren's case presents any claims within our subject-matter jurisdiction. While much of what Mr. Warren alleges is difficult to under st and, one thing is clear---his case does 7017 1450 ODDO 1346 0454 Dockets.Justia.com not concern anything that this court is empowered to entertain. Plaintiff seeks to remedy grievances with state-prison officials, employees, and inmates. The Tucker Act grants this court jurisdiction over cases seeking damages against the United States government for claims founded upon the Constitution, statutes, or regulations of the United States, as well as damages for breaches of contracts with the United States. 28 U .S.C. § 1491(a)(l). Congress has specifically withheld from our subject-matter jurisdiction cases for damages that sound in tort. Id. Plaintiff alleges the theft of his property and his identity by various individuals, not one of whom is a federal official. As his case centers around complaints about allegedly tortious conduct by state-prison officials and private parties, our court lacks the authority to hear the matter. Id.; see Vlahahis v. United States, 215 Ct. Cl. 1018, 1018- 19 (1978). The case is therefore DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to RCFC 12(h)(3). Because the lack of jurisdiction was identified early in the process, before many resources were expended in addressing the matter, and taking into consideration Mr. Warren's obvious confusion about the type of cases our court can hear, the Court has concluded that plaintiff may be relieved of the need to pay the filing fee. Accordingly, his application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 4, is DENIED-AS-MOOT. The Clerk is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. -2-
]]>
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.
