Anderson v. United States
117 Fed. Cl. 330
Fed. Cl.
2014
Check Treatment
Docket

Steven T. ANDERSON, Pro Se Plaintiff v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant.

No. 14-490C

United States Court of Federal Claims.

July 1, 2014

330

NANCY B. FIRESTONE, Judge

squarely address this question, the court requests additional briefing. Counsel should address the following:

  1. Plaintiff points to
    and
    in support of its contention that its certified claim is separate and distinct from the government claim at issue in the April 2012 decision. In those cases, the court found that a claim for breach of contract was separate and distinct from the government claim of termination of a contract for default. Defendant should respond to the potential relevance of this line of cases. Counsel may further address implications, if any, of these cases on the court‘s finding regarding the Board‘s jurisdiction over plaintiff‘s appeal of the April 2012 decision as described in the court‘s February decision.
  2. Counsel should discuss whether a direct comparison of plaintiff‘s certified claim and the government claim supports a finding that there are different factual and legal issues found in the claims and whether the claims are therefore separate and distinct. Counsel should link their arguments regarding whether the two claims are separate and distinct to an election doctrine analysis.

IV. Conclusion

The court invites the parties to consider an equitable resolution to this dispute. If counsel are inclined to attempt mediation or another form of alternative dispute resolution, one option available to the parties is the assignment of a settlement judge for this purpose.

If the parties are not amenable to an equitable resolution of this matter, they simultaneously shall file supplemental briefs, on or before July 30, 2014. Counsel then shall file simultaneously response briefs, on or before August 14, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

NANCY B. FIRESTONE, Judge

In this case, plaintiff Steven T. Anderson (“Mr. Anderson“) alleges that the Salt Lake County Assessor‘s office and other various local officials have violated the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice‘s (“USPAP“) record-keeping rules by failing to supply plaintiff‘s work records following his termination as an appraiser with the office. Plaintiff identifies the USPAP as a “federal policy.”

Under Rule 12(h)(3) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” In so determining, the court may consider the issue of jurisdic-tion on its own without being raised by any party.

. In considering a case brought by a pro se plaintiff, the court holds “the pleading ‘to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.‘”
(quoting
). Despite this permissive standard, a pro se plaintiff must still satisfy the court‘s jurisdictional requirements.
(“This latitude, however, does not relieve a pro se plaintiff from meeting jurisdictional requirements.“), aff‘d,
.

The court has reviewed Mr. Anderson‘s complaint and finds that jurisdiction is lacking. In his complaint, Mr. Anderson names “Salt Lake County, Salt Lake County Assessor, Kevin Jacobs, Matthew Smith, and Steven Dana” as defendants.1 Complaint 1, ECF No. 1. This court does not have jurisdiction over any claims alleged against states, localities, state and local government entities, or state and local government officials and employees; jurisdiction only extends to suits against the United States itself. See

(“[I]ts jurisdiction is confined to the rendition of money judgments in suits brought for that relief against the United States, ... and if the relief sought is against others than the United States the suit as to them must be ignored as beyond the jurisdiction of the court.“) (citations omitted);
, reh‘g denied (Fed. Cir. 1997);
(citing
). Moreover, while Mr. Anderson cites USPAP as a “federal policy,” nothing in USPAP authorizes a claim for money damages against the United States.

As this court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case, the case must be DISMISSED. The clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Notes

1
The plaintiff‘s complaint does not name the United States but Salt Lake County, Salt Lake County Assessor, Kevin Jacobs, Matthew Smith, and Steven Dana as defendants, none of whom are federal employees. The United States was substituted in the caption for purposes of serving the complaint only.
2
Plaintiff‘s amended application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 6, is GRANTED for the limited purpose of filing this complaint.
Read the detailed case summary