United States Court of Federal Claims
No. iS-i645 C Filed: December 7, 2018
) CHRISTOPHER CATO, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Pro Se; Sua Sponte Dismissal; Lack of ) Subject-l\/latter Jurisdiction', Claims v. ) Against State and City Officials; ) Civii Rights Claims; Toi‘t Clairns; Civil THE UNITED STATES, ) Rights Claims; Constitutionai Claims ) Defendant. ) ) OPINION AND ORDER
SMITH, Senior Judge
On October 22, 2018, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed his Compiaint With this Court seeking various forms of relief Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts, infer alia, that the State of Texas, the Houston Poiice Department, and employees Within the I~Iouston Police Department committed harmful acts against him and his family and deprived him of various constitutional rights See generally Complaint (hereinafter “Compl.”). Piaintiff seeks injunctive relief and money damages in the amount of 340 million. Additionally, plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Pi‘oceed informer pauperis on October i?, 2018.
Upon sua sponte review, the Court finds plaintiffs allegations do not give rise to any cause of action over Which this Court has subject~matter jurisdiction The Court has no authority to decide plaintiff s case, and therefore must dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) of the Rules of the United States Couit of Federal Claims (“RCFC”).
I. Background
In his Complaint, plaintiff alleges that a City of Houston police officer falsely arrested and charged him for “Unwarranted l\/lental Comm.” in June of 1995, and that the charges Were later dismissed for insufficient evidence Compl. at l. Additionaily, plaintiff states that he fiied a complaint With the Houston Police Depai'tment against the arresting officer for false imprisonment, slander, defamation, pei'jury, and oppression. Id. Mr. Cato also asserts that the State of Texas and the City of Houston Police Department intentionally concealed that complaint to “l
_1_
officer, the State of Texas and the l~louston Police i`)epartment harassed him, discriminated against him, and violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Id.
As a result of the alleged conduct in plaintiffs Colnplaint with this Court, Cato is seeking 840 million in compensatory and punitive damages stemming from slander; defamation; expenses associated with his arrest and litigation expenses; false imprisonment; false arrest‘, pain and suffering; violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights; “putting mental stress on the parents and brother of the plaintif ’; “the hurting of the wrist of l\/lr. Cato”; “sleeping on the floor of the Han‘is County Jail”; and the “cost of the clothes and shoes the plaintiff had to put in the trash.” Pi.’s Exhibit l at 6~7. Cato also demands injunctive relief including an investigation into the complaint he filed with the Houston Police Department as well as a letter
of apology. Id. at 7. II. Standard of Review
This Court’s jurisdictional grant is primarily defined by the Tucl424 U.S. 392, 398 (l 976). Rather, in order to fall within the scope of the Tucker Act, “a plaintiff must identify a separate source of substantive law that creates the right to money damages.” Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1l67, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc in relevant part).
“Courts have an independent obligation to determine Whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists . . . .” Hertz Corp. v. Frz`end, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010). lf the Court lacks jurisdiction, it cannot proceed with the action and must dismiss the case. Arbcmgh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). RCFC 12(h)(3) provides: “lf the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” in determining whether subject~rnatter jurisdiction exists, the Court will treat factual allegations in the complaint as true and will construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff See Esfes Express Lines v. United States, 739 F.Bd 689, 692 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Furthermore, pleadings from pro se plaintiffs are held to more lenient standards than pleadings drafted by lawyersl See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S, 5, 9 (1980); see also Eri.'ckson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). This leniency, however, does not extend to saving a complaint that lies outside of this Court’s jurisdiction “Despite this permissive Standard, a pro se plaintiff must still satisfy the court’s jurisdictional requirements.” Trevino v. United States, 1l3 Fed. Cl. 204, 208 (2013), ajjf’d, 557 F. App’x 995 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citations omitted). Pro se or not, the plaintiff still has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that this Court has jurisdiction over its claims. See Kokkonen v. Guardion Life Ins. Co. ofAm., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).
III. Discussion
Plaintiff fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that this Court has jurisdiction over his claims lt is well established that the United States Court of Federal Claims lacks “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.” Anderson v. United States, 1l7 Fed. Cl. 330, 331 (20l4)', Smiih v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 581, 583~84 (2011). As such, the Court cannot hear plaintiffs claims raised against the State of 'fexas, the City of Houston, the City of Houston Police Department, and the arresting officer.
Additionally, this Court cannot adjudicate Cato’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments are not money-mandating and, therefore, are not subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. See Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 62l, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that the Fourth Amendrnent does not mandate payment and therefore such claims are not within the jurisdiction of this Court) (citations omitted); Oga’en v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 44, 47 (2004) (stating that nothing in the Due Process Clause or Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment mandates monetary compensation)', Carruih v. United States, 224 Ct. Cl. 422, 445 (1980) (finding no jurisdiction based on Fifth Amendment Due Process or Equal Protection).
The Court also lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs civil rights claims Plaintiff alleges the State and City police officers violated his civil rights Cornpl. at 2. Only federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear claims alleging civil rights violations See Jones v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 92, 99 (2012); Marlin v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 475, 476 (2005) (citing Wildman v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
United States Court of Federal Claims
No. iS-i645 C Filed: December 7, 2018
) CHRISTOPHER CATO, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Pro Se; Sua Sponte Dismissal; Lack of ) Subject-l\/latter Jurisdiction', Claims v. ) Against State and City Officials; ) Civii Rights Claims; Toi‘t Clairns; Civil THE UNITED STATES, ) Rights Claims; Constitutionai Claims ) Defendant. ) ) OPINION AND ORDER
SMITH, Senior Judge
On October 22, 2018, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed his Compiaint With this Court seeking various forms of relief Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts, infer alia, that the State of Texas, the Houston Poiice Department, and employees Within the I~Iouston Police Department committed harmful acts against him and his family and deprived him of various constitutional rights See generally Complaint (hereinafter “Compl.”). Piaintiff seeks injunctive relief and money damages in the amount of 340 million. Additionally, plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Pi‘oceed informer pauperis on October i?, 2018.
Upon sua sponte review, the Court finds plaintiffs allegations do not give rise to any cause of action over Which this Court has subject~matter jurisdiction The Court has no authority to decide plaintiff s case, and therefore must dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) of the Rules of the United States Couit of Federal Claims (“RCFC”).
I. Background
In his Complaint, plaintiff alleges that a City of Houston police officer falsely arrested and charged him for “Unwarranted l\/lental Comm.” in June of 1995, and that the charges Were later dismissed for insufficient evidence Compl. at l. Additionaily, plaintiff states that he fiied a complaint With the Houston Police Depai'tment against the arresting officer for false imprisonment, slander, defamation, pei'jury, and oppression. Id. Mr. Cato also asserts that the State of Texas and the City of Houston Police Department intentionally concealed that complaint to “l
_1_
officer, the State of Texas and the l~louston Police i`)epartment harassed him, discriminated against him, and violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Id.
As a result of the alleged conduct in plaintiffs Colnplaint with this Court, Cato is seeking 840 million in compensatory and punitive damages stemming from slander; defamation; expenses associated with his arrest and litigation expenses; false imprisonment; false arrest‘, pain and suffering; violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights; “putting mental stress on the parents and brother of the plaintif ’; “the hurting of the wrist of l\/lr. Cato”; “sleeping on the floor of the Han‘is County Jail”; and the “cost of the clothes and shoes the plaintiff had to put in the trash.” Pi.’s Exhibit l at 6~7. Cato also demands injunctive relief including an investigation into the complaint he filed with the Houston Police Department as well as a letter
of apology. Id. at 7. II. Standard of Review
This Court’s jurisdictional grant is primarily defined by the Tucl424 U.S. 392, 398 (l 976). Rather, in order to fall within the scope of the Tucker Act, “a plaintiff must identify a separate source of substantive law that creates the right to money damages.” Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1l67, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc in relevant part).
“Courts have an independent obligation to determine Whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists . . . .” Hertz Corp. v. Frz`end, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010). lf the Court lacks jurisdiction, it cannot proceed with the action and must dismiss the case. Arbcmgh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). RCFC 12(h)(3) provides: “lf the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” in determining whether subject~rnatter jurisdiction exists, the Court will treat factual allegations in the complaint as true and will construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff See Esfes Express Lines v. United States, 739 F.Bd 689, 692 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Furthermore, pleadings from pro se plaintiffs are held to more lenient standards than pleadings drafted by lawyersl See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S, 5, 9 (1980); see also Eri.'ckson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). This leniency, however, does not extend to saving a complaint that lies outside of this Court’s jurisdiction “Despite this permissive Standard, a pro se plaintiff must still satisfy the court’s jurisdictional requirements.” Trevino v. United States, 1l3 Fed. Cl. 204, 208 (2013), ajjf’d, 557 F. App’x 995 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citations omitted). Pro se or not, the plaintiff still has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that this Court has jurisdiction over its claims. See Kokkonen v. Guardion Life Ins. Co. ofAm., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).
III. Discussion
Plaintiff fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that this Court has jurisdiction over his claims lt is well established that the United States Court of Federal Claims lacks “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.” Anderson v. United States, 1l7 Fed. Cl. 330, 331 (20l4)', Smiih v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 581, 583~84 (2011). As such, the Court cannot hear plaintiffs claims raised against the State of 'fexas, the City of Houston, the City of Houston Police Department, and the arresting officer.
Additionally, this Court cannot adjudicate Cato’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments are not money-mandating and, therefore, are not subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. See Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 62l, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that the Fourth Amendrnent does not mandate payment and therefore such claims are not within the jurisdiction of this Court) (citations omitted); Oga’en v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 44, 47 (2004) (stating that nothing in the Due Process Clause or Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment mandates monetary compensation)', Carruih v. United States, 224 Ct. Cl. 422, 445 (1980) (finding no jurisdiction based on Fifth Amendment Due Process or Equal Protection).
The Court also lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs civil rights claims Plaintiff alleges the State and City police officers violated his civil rights Cornpl. at 2. Only federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear claims alleging civil rights violations See Jones v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 92, 99 (2012); Marlin v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 475, 476 (2005) (citing Wildman v. United Si'aies, 28 Fed. Cl. 494, 495 (1993) (“[’l`jhe Court does not have jurisdiction to consider civil rights claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, or 1985 because jurisdiction over claims arising under the Civil Rights Act resides exclusively in the district courts.”)).
Furthermore, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs remaining claims because they sound in tort. The Tuci
As noted above, Cato filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis on October 17, 2018. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, federal courts are permitted to waive filing fees under certain circumstances See 28 U.S.C. § 191 5(a)(l). The statute requires that an applicant be “unable to pay such fees.” 28 U.S.C. § l915(a)(1). To be “‘unable to pay such fees’ means that paying such fees would constitute a serious hardship on the plaintif '.” Fiebelkorn v. United States, 77 Fed. Cl. 59, 62 (2007); see also Moore v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 411, 414-15
_3_
(2010). For good cause shown, plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is granted
IV. Coriclusion
For the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs Complaint is, sua sponie, DISMISSED pursuant to RCFC l2(h)(3) for lack of jurisdiction Additionally, plaintiff s Motion for Leave to Proceed informa pauperis is GRANTEI). 'I`he Clerl< is hereby directed to enter judgment
consistent with this opinion , < v / ns
Loren A. Smith, Sehiof]udge
iT IS SO ORDERED.