Kondrat

Court of Claims

Kondrat

652 F.2d 68, 226 Ct. Cl. 637, 1981 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 29

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedJanuary 30, 1981

DocketNo. 497-80C

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 652 F.2d 68 (Kondrat) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kondrat, 652 F.2d 68, 226 Ct. Cl. 637, 1981 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 29 (cc 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

This pro se case comes before the court on defendant’s motion to dismiss for plaintiffs failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We conclude that we lack jurisdiction over plaintiffs claim and therefore grant defendant’s motion.

[638]*638This suit is based upon the alleged actions of elected and appointed officials of the city of Willoughby Hills, Ohio and others as having deprived plaintiff of his constitutional rights. Assuming this to be true, plaintiff still has failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. See, Ramirez v. United States, 224 Ct.Cl. 645, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 900 (1980); Vlahakis v. The United States, 215 Ct.Cl. 1018 (1978). Plaintiff has pointed to nothing in either a statute or the Constitution mandating that the United States pay monetary damages for violation of the Constitution by local government officials. Plaintiff may have a claim against the city or particular officials, but our jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. §1491 (1976), does not extend to such claims. Id.

Accordingly, it is ordered, after consideration of the parties’ submissions, but without oral argument, that defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the petition is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

This pro se case comes before the court on defendant’s motion to dismiss for plaintiffs failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We conclude that we lack jurisdiction over plaintiffs claim and therefore grant defendant’s motion.

[638]*638This suit is based upon the alleged actions of elected and appointed officials of the city of Willoughby Hills, Ohio and others as having deprived plaintiff of his constitutional rights. Assuming this to be true, plaintiff still has failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. See, Ramirez v. United States, 224 Ct.Cl. 645, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 900 (1980); Vlahakis v. The United States, 215 Ct.Cl. 1018 (1978). Plaintiff has pointed to nothing in either a statute or the Constitution mandating that the United States pay monetary damages for violation of the Constitution by local government officials. Plaintiff may have a claim against the city or particular officials, but our jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. §1491 (1976), does not extend to such claims. Id.

Accordingly, it is ordered, after consideration of the parties’ submissions, but without oral argument, that defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the petition is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

652 F.2d 68, 226 Ct. Cl. 637, 1981 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kondrat-cc-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack