Moore

Court of Claims

Moore

618 F.2d 119, 219 Ct. Cl. 585, 1979 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 10

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedJanuary 12, 1979

DocketNo. 401-78

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 618 F.2d 119 (Moore) 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

Moore, 618 F.2d 119, 219 Ct. Cl. 585, 1979 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 10 (cc 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff claims $3,350,000 for his alleged wrongful conviction and incarceration and for his release from Walpole Federal Penitentiary. Plaintiff alleges that he remains a prisoner due to no fault of his own but rather due to the neglect and failure to act by certain unidentified agents, judges, justices, and other officers of the United States upon his requests for a writ of habeas corpus. Our jurisdiction in such matters is limited by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1495, 2513. These two sections must be read together. Plaintiff has not made the showing required by these sections of the law. Plainly, plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted by this court which lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of this claim. Vincin v. United States, 199 Ct. Cl. 762, 468 F.2d 930 (1972).

it is therefore ordered that defendant’s motion to dismiss be and it is granted. The petition is dismissed.

Plaintiffs motion for rehearing was denied October 26, 1979.

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

Plaintiff claims $3,350,000 for his alleged wrongful conviction and incarceration and for his release from Walpole Federal Penitentiary. Plaintiff alleges that he remains a prisoner due to no fault of his own but rather due to the neglect and failure to act by certain unidentified agents, judges, justices, and other officers of the United States upon his requests for a writ of habeas corpus. Our jurisdiction in such matters is limited by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1495, 2513. These two sections must be read together. Plaintiff has not made the showing required by these sections of the law. Plainly, plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted by this court which lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of this claim. Vincin v. United States, 199 Ct. Cl. 762, 468 F.2d 930 (1972).

it is therefore ordered that defendant’s motion to dismiss be and it is granted. The petition is dismissed.

Plaintiffs motion for rehearing was denied October 26, 1979.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

618 F.2d 119, 219 Ct. Cl. 585, 1979 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-cc-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack