Ramirez

Court of Claims

Ramirez

650 F.2d 287, 224 Ct. Cl. 645, 1980 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 174

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedMay 16, 1980

DocketNo. 8-80C

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 650 F.2d 287 (Ramirez) 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

Ramirez, 650 F.2d 287, 224 Ct. Cl. 645, 1980 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 174 (cc 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Court of Claims jurisdiction; alleged constitutional violation by a state court judge; necessity for money damages mandate. — On May 16,1980 the court entered the following order:

Before Davis, Judge, Presiding, Kashiwa and Bennett, Judges.

This pro se plaintiff raises a claim under the United States Constitution seeking money damages for an alleged deprivation of her rights by a Texas state judge in the course of an unspecified legal proceeding. The Government has filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the petition fails to state a claim within the jurisdiction of this court. We conclude that we lack jurisdiction over plaintiffs claim and therefore grant defendant’s motion.

The facts alleged by the plaintiff are quite sketchy, but it is clear that her monetary claim rests on the theory that a state court judge has violated her Consitutional right. Assuming this to be true, plaintiff is suing the wrong party. She 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 state [646]*646officials. She may have a claim against the state or against the particular state officials, but our jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. §1491 (1976), does not extend to such claims. See Vlhakis v. United States, 215 Ct. Cl. 1018 (1978).

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

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

Court of Claims jurisdiction; alleged constitutional violation by a state court judge; necessity for money damages mandate. — On May 16,1980 the court entered the following order:

Before Davis, Judge, Presiding, Kashiwa and Bennett, Judges.

This pro se plaintiff raises a claim under the United States Constitution seeking money damages for an alleged deprivation of her rights by a Texas state judge in the course of an unspecified legal proceeding. The Government has filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the petition fails to state a claim within the jurisdiction of this court. We conclude that we lack jurisdiction over plaintiffs claim and therefore grant defendant’s motion.

The facts alleged by the plaintiff are quite sketchy, but it is clear that her monetary claim rests on the theory that a state court judge has violated her Consitutional right. Assuming this to be true, plaintiff is suing the wrong party. She 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 state [646]*646officials. She may have a claim against the state or against the particular state officials, but our jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. §1491 (1976), does not extend to such claims. See Vlhakis v. United States, 215 Ct. Cl. 1018 (1978).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

650 F.2d 287, 224 Ct. Cl. 645, 1980 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramirez-cc-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack