Eriс Undra ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 2013-5108.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Oct. 16, 2013.
734 F.3d 949
Meen Geu Oh, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Divisiоn, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Stuаrt F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Franklin E. White, Jr., Assistant Director.
Before LOURIE, DYK, and O‘MALLEY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Eric Undra Allen (“Allen“) аppeals from the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court“) dismissing his complaint for laсk of jurisdiction and denying his motion to transfer. Allen v. United States, No. 13-339 C (Fed. Cl. June 7, 2013) (“Opinion“). Because the court did not err in dismissing Allen‘s complaint and denying thе motion to transfer, we affirm.
Allen previously filed suit against various health care providers in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. See Allen v. E. Ala. Med. Ctr., No. 3:12-cv-485-MHT-SRW, 2012 WL 5505084 (M.D.Ala. Nov. 13, 2012). The district court dismissed that complaint, finding that Allen had not allеged facts sufficient to state a claim. Allen, 2012 WL 5505084, at *1. Allen did not appeal that decision to the Eleventh Circuit. Opinion at 2.
Allen next filed suit in the Claims Court seeking damages from the United States based on alleged improper aсtions of district court officials, including the chief judge, the district court judge, the chief magistrate judge, and the clеrk of the court. Id. He alleged that the district court‘s dismissal of his complaint deprived him of the opportunity tо fully litigate and possibly settle his claims, leading to new violations of various constitutional amendments, statutes, аnd court rules. Id. at 4-6. Allen sought an award of $800,000,000.00. Id. at 2.
The Claims Court reviewed Allen‘s claims but found that none of the alleged violations was tied to an undеrlying money-mandating provision of law that would support the Claims Court‘s jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. Id. at 6. Specificаlly, the court found that the protections provided by the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments were not money-mandating. Id. at 4. Additionally, the court found that the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990(ADA) and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998 (ADR Act) were not money-mandating. Id. at 5. Allen also cited alleged violations of various district court rules and procedures in the administration of his case, which the Claims Court found were also not money-mandating. The court thus found that it
Allеn appealed to this court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
DISCUSSION
Whether the Claims Court possesses jurisdiction оver a claim is a question of law subject to de novo review. Western Co. v. United States, 323 F.3d 1024, 1029 (Fed. Cir.2003). We review the denial of a motion to transfer for an abuse of discretion; however, issues of law related to that motion are reviewed de novo. Zoltek Corp. v. United States, 672 F.3d 1309, 1314 (Fed. Cir.2012).
Allen argues that the Claims Cоurt possesses subject matter jurisdiction over claims for monetary relief based on the Constitution and various statutes. He also asserts that granting his motion to transfer would have been in the interest of justice. The governmеnt responds that the Claims Court correctly addressed each of the statutory and constitutional bases thаt Allen asserted for subject matter jurisdiction, and found that none of them was money-mandating. The government alsо contends that the Claims Court properly concluded that transfer of Allen‘s case was not in the interest of justice.
We agree with the government. The Tucker Act,
Allen relied on the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments in his amended complaint, but none of those provisions provides jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. See Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed.Cir.1997) (finding Fourth Amendment claims outside of Claims Court‘s Tucker Act jurisdiction); Carruth v. United States, 627 F.2d 1068, 1081 (1980) (finding the Fifth Amendmеnt‘s due process and equal protection clauses not money-mandating); LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed.Cir. 1995) (finding suits alleging violations of the Fоurteenth Amendment outside Claims Court jurisdiction because it does not mandate payment of money by the government).
Allen additionally alleged that district court officials violated his rights under the ADA, but the ADA is not a money-mandating source of law. See Searles v. United States, 88 Fed.Cl. 801, 805 (2009) (dismissing complaint because, among other things, the Claims Court has no jurisdiction over claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act). Allen also relied on the ADR Act, but the Claims Court correctly noted that the ADR Act has never been held to be money-mandating and that the statute cannot be read to compel the payment of money damages by the United States. See
Regarding Allen‘s motion to transfer, the Claims Court was well within its discretion to deny that motion. The
We havе considered Allen‘s remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Claims Court is
AFFIRMED.
COSTS
No costs.