Anderson v. United States

117 Fed. Cl. 330, 2014 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1010, 2014 WL 2938455

• Court: United States Court of Federal Claims
• Decided: July 1, 2014
• Docket: 1:14-cv-00490
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

NANCY B. FIRESTONE, Judge

In this case, plaintiff Steven T. Anderson (“Mr. Anderson”) alleges that the Salt Lake County Assessor’s office and other various local officials have violated the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice’s (“USPAP”) record-keeping rules by failing to supply plaintiffs work records following his termination as an appraiser with the office. Plaintiff identifies the USPAP as a “federal policy.”

Under Rule 12(h)(3) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” In so determining, the court may consider the issue of jurisdiction on its own without being raised by any party. Folden v. United States, 379 F.3d 1344, 1354 (Fed.Cir.2004). In considering a ease brought by a pro se plaintiff, the court holds “the pleading ‘to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’ ” Johnson v. United States, 411 Fed.Appx. 303, 305 (Fed.Cir.2010) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)). Despite this permissive standard, a pro se plaintiff must still satisfy the court’s jurisdictional requirements. Bernard v. United States, 59 Fed.Cl. 497, 499 (2004) (“This latitude, however, does not relieve a pro se plaintiff from meeting jurisdictional requirements.”), aff'd 98 Fed.Appx. 860 (Fed.Cir.2004).

The court has reviewed Mr. Anderson’s complaint and finds that jurisdiction is lacking. In his complaint, Mr. Anderson names “Salt Lake County, Salt Lake County Assessor, Kevin Jacobs, Matthew Smith, and Steven Dana” as defendants. Complaint 1, ECF No. 1. This court does not have jurisdiction over any claims alleged against states, localities, state and local government entities, or state and local government officials and employees; jurisdiction only extends to suits against the United States itself. See United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588, 61 S.Ct. 767, 85 L.Ed. 1058 (1941) (“[I]ts jurisdiction is confined to the rendition of money judgments in suits brought for that relief against the United States, ... and if the relief sought is against others than the United States the suit as to them must be ignored as beyond the jurisdiction of the court.”) (citations omitted); Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed.Cir.1997), reh’g denied (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. United States, 99 Fed.Cl. 581, 583-84 (2011) (citing Moore v. Pub. Defender’s Office, 76 Fed.Cl. 617, 620 (2007)). Moreover, while Mr. Anderson cites USPAP as a “federal policy,” nothing in USPAP authorizes a claim for money damages against the United States.

As this court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case, the ease must be DISMISSED. The clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2 . Plaintiff’s amended application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 6, is GRANTED for the limited purpose of filing this complaint.