Sacchi v. United States

Opinion

ORgG!NAL llntbe @ntteb $tstes @ourt of :feDersl @lsimg No. 18-274C (Filed: February 26, 2018) FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 2 6 2018

U.S. COURT OF CASEY SACCHI. FEDERAL CLAIMS

Plaintiff, Pro Se Complaint; Sua Sponte Dismissal for Want of Jurisdiction, RCFC l2(hX3). THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

ORDER

Cunently before the court in this matter are: (1) the complaint of p1q se plaintiff Casey Sacchi, ECF No. 1, filed February 21,2018; and (2) plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 4, also filed February 21,2018. Because the court lacks jurisdiction over plaintifls claims, the court must dismiss this case pursuant to Rule 12(hX3) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). See RCFC l2(hX3) ("lf the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action."). The court's jurisdictional analysis is set forth below.

I. Background

Plaintiff s complaint states he is being persecuted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The cause for this persecution is attributed to the fact that Mr. Sacchi is from Ghana. ECF No. I at2. T\e form of the persecution is harassment, stalking, civil rights abuses, and torture. Id. at l-4. The relief sought for the mental and physical strain caused by three decades of persecution is fifty million dollars. Id. at 4.

II. Pro Se Litigants

The court acknowledges that pro se plaintiffs are not expected to frame issues with the precision of a common law pleading. Roche v. USPS, 828 F.2d 1555, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Therefore, plaintiff s complaint has been reviewed carefully to ascertain whether, given the most favorable reading, it supports jurisdiction in this court.

?El,b 3El,D 8000 q306 '{05h II I. Jurisdiction

"A court may and should raise the question of its jurisdiction sua sponte at any time it appears in doubt." Arctic Comer. Inc. v. United States, 845 F.2d 999, 1000 (Fed' Cir. 1988) (citation omitted). The Tucker Act delineates this court's jurisdiction' 28 U.S.C. $ 1491 (2012). That statute "confersjurisdiction upon the Court ofFederal Claims over the specified categories of actions brought against the United States." Fisher v. United States,402F.3d 1167, ll72 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations omitted)' These include money damages claims against the federal government founded upon the Constitution, an act ofCongress, a regulation promulgated by an executive department, any express or implied contract with the United States, or any claim for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort. Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. $ 1a91(a)(1)).

IV. Analysis

Plaintiff s complaint alleges, first, civil rights abuses by the FBI. ECF No. I at 2. It is well settled that violations of constitutional rights, such as the rights to due process and equal protection, and violations of civil rights, generally, do not fall within this court's jurisdiction. Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621,624 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Marlin v. United States, 63 Fed. C\.475,476 (2005). Plaintiffalso alleges that employees ofthe FBI have committed intentional torts against him. ECF No. I at L Tort claims are specifically excluded from this court's jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. $ la91(a)(1). Further, plaintiff accuses the FBI of torture, ECF No. I at3-4, but claims alleging torture by govemment officials are not within the jurisdiction of this court. Perales v. United States, ilf fea. O.417,418 (20\7); Mendiola v. United States, l24Fed. Cl. 684, 688 (2016). Finally, plaintiff alleges that the FBI subjected him to criminal harassment and stalking' ECF No. I at 2. This court has no criminal jurisdiction. Campbell v. United States, 229 Ct. Cl. 706, 707 (1981). None of plaintiff s claims against the FBI fall within this court's jurisdiction.

V. Conclusion

The complaint in this case must be dismissed. Accordingly, plaintiffls application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 4, is GRANTED for the limited purpose of determining this court's jurisdiction. The clerk's office is directed to ENTER judgment for defendint DISMISSING plaintiff s complaint for lack ofjurisdiction, without prejudice, pursuant to RCFC 12(hX3)'

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ATzuCIAE. C Judge