Smith v. United States
99 Fed. Cl. 581
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- Plaintiff Richard R. Smith, a pro se litigant, filed Complaint (Dkt. 1) on July 18, 2011.
- Complaint asserts a 1996 shooting by a Holbrook, Arizona police officer causing ongoing medical issues.
- The incident allegedly occurred during a vehicle pursuit in Arizona in 1996.
- Plaintiff seeks some form of settlement; the complaint asks for relief against state/local actors.
- The court sua sponte or in response to the filing determines lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(h)(3).
- The court grants in forma pauperis status for the limited purpose of filing the complaint and dismisses without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction; transfer is deemed inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Court of Federal Claims have jurisdiction over the claims? | Smith asserts a claim for damages arising from a 1996 shooting. | Court lacks jurisdiction because defendants are not the United States and tort claims are not within the Court’s Tucker Act jurisdiction. | No subject-matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act; claims against non-federal actors are outside the court’s scope. |
| Should the case be transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1631? | Not applicable; plaintiff did not request transfer. | Transfer not appropriate because claims could not have been brought in the transferee court. | Transfer is inappropriate; case is dismissed without prejudice. |
| Is dismissal the proper remedy under RCFC 12(h)(3)? | N/A or insufficient stated. | Lack of jurisdiction requires dismissal under RCFC 12(h)(3). | Dismissal without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Folden v. United States, 379 F.3d 1344 (Fed.Cir.2004) (subject-matter jurisdiction may be challenged sua sponte; pleadings construed liberally for pro se)
- Metabolite Labs., Inc. v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings, 370 F.3d 1354 (Fed.Cir.2004) (jurisdictional analysis based on face of pleadings)
- Jan’s Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d 1299 (Fed.Cir.2008) (money-mandating source required for Tucker Act claims)
- Tex. Peanut Farmers v. United States, 409 F.3d 1370 (Fed.Cir.2005) (transfer considerations when lack of jurisdiction established)
- McGrath v. United States, 85 Fed.Cl. 769 (2009) (Court of Federal Claims limits; not hearing state/local government claims)
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (1941) (establishes Tucker Act jurisdiction framework)