Rusk v. United States ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •        3Jn tbe Wniteb ~tates ~ourt
    OR GINAL
    of eberal   jf           ~laittt5
    No. 16-1640C
    (Filed December 19, 2016)
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    FILED
    ************************                                                DEC 1 9 2016
    *
    *                                               U.S. COURT OF
    ZACHARY R . E. RUSK,                      ·k                          FEDERAL CLAIMS
    ·k
    *
    Plaintiff,
    v.          *
    *
    THE UNITED STATES,       *
    *
    Defendant. *
    *
    *****************'k******
    ORDER
    On December 12, 2016, plaintiff Zachary R. E. Rusk, r epresenting himself,
    filed a complaint in this court along with a request for leave to proceed in forma
    pauperis. After carefully reviewing the complaint, the Court finds t hat Mr. Rusk
    has failed to state a claim within this court's subject matter jurisdiction.
    Unfortunately, Mr. Rusk seems to misunder stand the nature of our Court and its
    jurisdiction.
    Subject-matter jurisdiction can be challenged by the parties at any time, or
    raised by the court sua sponte. Folden v. United States, 
    379 F.3d 1344
    , 1354 (Fed.
    Cir. 2004). Pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) of the Rules of the United States Court of
    Federal Claims (RCFC), "if the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-
    matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." When a court undert akes
    this determination, "the allegations stated in t he complaint are taken as true and
    jurisdiction is decided on the face of the pleadings." Folden, 
    379 F.3d at 1354
    .
    The Tucker Act, 
    28 U.S.C. § 1491
    , explicitly states that this CoUl't h as no
    jurisdiction over tort claims. 
    28 U.S.C. § 1491
    (a)(l). This CoID't's jurisdiction must
    be based on the alleged existence of a contract with the federal government or on a
    violation by the federal government of a law or constitutional provision mandating
    the payment of money. 
    28 U.S.C. § 1491
    (a)(l); see also United States v. Testan, 
    424 U.S. 392
    , 398 (1976) (noting that the Tucker Act confers jurisdiction only where the
    federal statute allegedly violated confers "a substantive right to recover money
    damages from the United States"); Contreras v. United States, 
    64 Fed. Cl. 583
    , 588
    7014 1200 DODO 9093 5401
    (2005) (holding that this court's jurisdiction "must be based on a law or regulation
    that either entitles the plaintiff to a payment of money from the government, or
    places a duty upon the government, the breach of which gives the plaintiff a money
    damages remedy").
    The only constitutional provisions in Mr. Rusk's complaint, the Fifth and
    Fourteenth Amendments, are not money mandating and therefore do not confer
    jurisdiction on this Court. See LeBlanc v. United States, 
    50 F.3d 1025
    , 1028 (Fed.
    Cir. 1995) (holding that the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment is
    not money-mandating) (citing Carruth v. United States, 627 F .2d 1068, 1081
    (1980)); Smith v. United States, 
    709 F.3d 1114
    , 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (holding t h at
    the Due Process Clauses of both the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments are not
    money-mandating); Brown v. United States, 227 Ct. CL 786, 787 (1981) (finding no
    jurisdiction over claim alleging deprivation of liberty in violation of the Fifth
    Amendment).t
    Finally, it is well established that this Court does not have jurisdiction to
    review the actions of other courts. See Joshua v. United States, 
    17 F.3d 378
    , 380
    (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding that this court "does not have jurisdiction to r eview the
    decisions of district courts . .. relating to proceedings before t hose courts"); Vereda,
    Ltda. v. United States, 
    271 F.3d 1367
    , 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that this
    court is not an appellate tribunal, and "does not h ave jurisdiction to review the
    decisions of district courts"); Bafford v. United States, No. 09- 030, 
    2009 WL 2391785
    , at *4 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 3, 2009) (explaining that this court does not have
    jurisdiction to review the decisions of federal courts of appeal).
    Because it is apparent on the face of the complaint that this Court lacks
    jurisdiction, plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED as beyond our court's jurisdiction
    pursuant to RCFC 12(h)(3). The request to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby
    GRANTED, and Mr. Rusk is relieved of the obligation to pay the filing fee for this
    case. The Clerk shall close the case.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    t The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment may only be a basis for our
    jurisdiction when a claim seeks the return of money paid to the federal government
    under the rubric of an illegal exaction. See Aerolineas Argentinas v. United States,
    
    77 F.3d 1564
    , 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Coleman v. United States, No. 13-431C, 
    2014 WL 949984
    , at *3 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 7, 2014).
    -2-