Tasby v. United States
91 Fed. Cl. 344
Fed. Cl.
2010
Check Treatment
Docket

OPINION and ORDER

SMITH, Senior Judge.

Plaintiff, Leon Tasby, has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, а Complaint, and a Memorandum of Law in Support of the Complaint. In response, Defendant filеd a Motion to Dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1). It appears to the Court that Plaintiff is indigent; therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. However, after careful review and consideration, the Court hereby GRANTS Defеndant’s Motion to Dismiss.

I. BACKGROUND

In 1983, a Texas state court sentenced Mr. Tasby to life in prison on a charge оf aggravated robbery. Mr. Tasby was incarcerated until his release on parole from a Texas state prison on August 10, 2009. While incarcerated, Mr. Tasby filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which was denied. On January 16, 2009, Mr. Tasby asked this Court to review the Southern District’s denial of his habeas petition. This Court dismissed that complaint without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiсtion. See Tasby v. United States, 87 Fed.Cl. 180 (2009).

Following that dismissal, Mr. Tasby filed a new Complaint in this Court. In his new Complaint, Mr. Tasby seeks compensatory damages ‍‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‍of $3,458,827.20 for lost wages, personal humiliation, and mental anguish due to the many years of his аlleged false imprison*346ment. (Compl. at 4-5.) He also seeks another $6,000,000 for his two children, $1 in nominal damages, $5,000,000 in punitive damages, and “any such other payments ... that this Court deems just.” (Compl. at 5.) In addition, Mr. Tasby asks the Court to direct the Defendant to pay all taxes associated with these damages. Id.

The Defendant asks the Court to dismiss Mr. Tasby’s new Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1). The mоtion now being fully briefed, the Court agrees with the Defendant that this matter must be dismissed.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Plaintiff proceeds pro se; therefore, the Court hоlds his pleadings to a less stringent standard than the Court would hold a party represented by an attornеy. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9, 101 S.Ct. 173, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980). Nevertheless, Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the Court’s jurisdiction by a preponderance оf the evidence. Taylor v. United States, 303 F.3d 1357, 1359 (Fed.Cir.2002). Thus, the Court must dismiss Mr. Tasby’s Complaint if he fails to establish subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.

III. DISCUSSION

Mr. Tasby is before the Court asserting several claims. Thеse claims are comprised of a tort claim, as well as constitutional ‍‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‍and statutory violations. However, none of Mr. Tasby’s claims are within the jurisdiction of this Court.

A. ToH Claims are Precluded in This Court

In his Complaint, Mr. Tasby seeks monetаry damages for his claim of false imprisonment. (Compl. at 4-5.) The Court does not have jurisdiction ovеr this claim, because false imprisonment is a tort, and the Tucker Act bars claims sounding in tort from the jurisdiсtion of this Court. See, e.g., Schweitzer v. United States, 82 Fed.Cl. 592, 595 (2008).

This Court can, however, consider a claim of unjust imprisonment under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1495, 2513. See Phillips v. United States, 175 Ct.Cl. 885, 885 (1966) (holding that these statutеs require claimants to show a pardon or a certificate of innocence). However, Mr. Tasby neither asserted such a claim, nor has he produced any such evidence.

B. Constitutional Claims

In ordеr for this Court to have jurisdiction over constitutional and statutory claims, the claims must be money mandаting. United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 216, 218, 103 S.Ct. 2961, 77 L.Ed.2d 580 (1983). It appears from the Complaint that Mr. Tas-by filed two habeas petitions in federal district courts in Texas, whiсh were both denied. As a result, Mr. Tasby argues that these federal courts violated several cоnstitutional provisions when they relied on the opinions of Texas state ‍‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‍courts to permit his cоntinued incarceration. Those constitutional provisions include the Ex Post Facto Clause, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and the separation of powers doctrine.

None of the constitutional provisions cited by Mr. Tasby are money-mandating. See, e.g., Atlas Corp. v. United States, 15 Cl.Ct. 681, 691 (1988) (stating that the Ex Post Facto Clause is not mоney-mandating); Le-Blanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed.Cir.1995) (stating that the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, and the doctrine of separation of powers are not money-mandating); LaChance v. United States, 15 Cl.Ct. 127, 130 (1988) (stating that the Fourth Amendment prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures is not money-mandating); Trafny v. United States, 503 F.3d 1339, 1339 (Fed.Cir.2007) (stating that the Eighth Amendment prohibitions of excessive bail or fines, as well as cruel and unusual punishment, are not money-mandating). Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction оver these claims.

Although this Court does have jurisdiction to review a Fifth Amendment claim asserting ‍‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‍a taking оf private property, Mr. Tasby has not asserted such a claim. E.g. *347Morris v. United States, 392 F.3d 1372, 1375 (Fed.Cir.2004) (discussing this Court’s exclusive jurisdiction оver Fifth Amendment takings claims “for amounts greater than $10,000”). Thus, the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear his Fifth Amendment claim.

C. Statutory Claims

Finally, it appears that Mr. Tasby is toying to submit some claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (relating to applicаtions for writs of habeas corpus), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (relating to civil rights claims), and three other federal statutes. This Court cannot grant a writ оf habeas cotpus. Ledford v. United States, 297 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed.Cir.2002). Neither does this Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. Anderson v. United States, 22 Cl.Ct. 178,179 n. 2 (1990), aff'd, 937 F.2d 623, 1991 WL 100830 (Fed.Cir.1991). Mr. Tasby also invokes three аdditional federal statutes: 28 U.S.C. § 2071(A), (C); 28 U.S.C. § 2503(B); and 28 U.S.C. § 2521(A). These statutes confer authority on this Court to promulgate its rules оf practice and procedure, and to issue subpoenas. Therefore, none of the above statutes confers jurisdiction on the Court.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss because it lacks jurisdiction ‍‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‍to hear Plaintiff’s claims. The Court further directs the Clerk to DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs Complaint.

It is so ORDERED.