Walker v. United States

Opinion

ORlG\NAL Wniteb ~tates ~ourt of jfeberal ~laitns No. 18-0006 C Filed: January 31, 2018 FILED ) JAN 3 1 2018 CEDRIC TYRONE WALKER, ) ) U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS Plaintiff, ) ) Pro Se; Lack of Subject Matter of v. ) Jurisdiction; In Forma Pauperis ) Application THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) _ _ ___ __________ )

ORDER

SMITH, Senior Judge

On January 2, 2018, plaintiff, proceedingpro se, filed a complaint in this Comt and concurrently filed an informa pauperis application seeking leave to proceed without paying the Court filing fee. Plaintiff, a prisoner incarcerated in Florida, alleges that the Federal Bureau of Prisons in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. Mr. Walker is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, as well as a trial by jury.

This Comt's jurisdictional grant is primarily defined by the Tucker Act, which provides this Comi the power "to render any judgment upon any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States .. . in cases not sounding in tort." 28 U.S .C. § 1491(a)(l). Although the Tucker Act expressly waives the sovereign immunity of the United States against such claims, it "does not create any substantive right enforceable against the United States for money damages." United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976). 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 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane in relevant part).

Upon sua sponte review, this Comi finds plaintiffs allegations do not give rise to any cause of action over which this Comt has subject-matter jurisdiction. The Eighth Amendment is "not a money-mandating provision," and, accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Walker's claims of cruel and unusual punishment. Edelmann v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 376, 383 (2007); see also Trafny v. United States, 503 F.3d 1339, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (per curiam); Hardin v. United States, 123 Fed. Cl. 667, 671 (2015). The Comi has no authority to decide

7016 3010 DODD 4308 3808 plaintiffs case, and therefore must dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC").

In consideration of the above, the motion to proceed informa pauperis is GRANTED and plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED, pursuant to RCFC 12(h)(3). The Clerk is hereby directed to take the necessary steps to dismiss this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Thomas C. Wheeler, Judge For Loren A. Smith, Senior Judge

-2-