Greene v. United States

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 22-1711C (Filed: May 15, 2023) NOT FOR PUBLICATION

*************************************** CEDRIC GREENE, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

v. *

*

THE UNITED STATES, *

*

Defendant. *

*

***************************************

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Cedric Greene, proceeding pro se, brings claims arising from allegedly unfair actions by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, where Plaintiff has had other litigation pending. See Complaint (ECF 1). The government has moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1).1 The motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

The Tucker Act limits this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction — its authority to pass judgment on the cases before it — to specific types of claims, most commonly claims for money damages. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); see also Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“The Court of Federal Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction.”). Perhaps confusingly for pro se litigants, it is not a forum for “federal claims” generally. Claims that are outside the Court’s jurisdiction must be dismissed. RCFC 12(h)(3). “In determining jurisdiction, a court must accept as true all undisputed facts asserted in the plaintiff’s complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795, 797 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). “Although a pro se plaintiff’s complaint is held to a less stringent standard than those prepared by counsel, pro se litigants are not excused from meeting jurisdictional requirements.” Spengler v. United States, 688 F. App’x 917, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citations omitted) (citing Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980), and Kelley v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).

Plaintiff fails to allege any claim over which this Court might exercise jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s claims, as mentioned, go to the conduct of a federal district court. This Court does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of district courts. See, e.g., Innovair Aviation Ltd. v. United States, 632 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that the Court of Federal Claims “does not have jurisdiction to review the decision of district courts and cannot entertain ... claim[s] that require[ ] the court to scrutinize the actions of another tribunal”) (internal quotes omitted); Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding that the Court of Federal Claims “does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of district courts ... relating to proceedings before those courts”). Review of the district court’s handling of Plaintiff’s claims lies in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Even if this Court did have jurisdiction to review the district court’s decisions, Plaintiff characterizes the district court’s alleged misconduct as “negligence,” a tort claim outside this Court’s jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); Shearin v. United States, 992 F.2d 1195, 1197 (Fed. Cir. 1993); cf. Tort, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss mentions the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities, Due Process, and Equal Protection Clauses. Pl.’s Resp. at 3. This Court lacks jurisdiction over claims based on those constitutional provisions because they do not mandate payment of money. LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses); McCullough v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 1, 4 (2006) (same); Wall v. United States, 141 Fed. Cl. 585, 598 (2019) (Privileges or Immunities Clause). Even with due allowance for Plaintiff’s pro se status, he has not identified any factual or legal basis for recovery over which this Court might have jurisdiction.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED, without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction. See Aerolineas Argentinas v. United States, 77 F.3d 1564, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“[I]n the absence of subject matter jurisdiction there can be no preclusive findings or conclusions on the merits, and dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is without prejudice.”).

The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Stephen S. Schwartz STEPHEN S. SCHWARTZ Judge