Krukowski v. United States ( 2016 )

ORIGINAL
3Jn tbe Wniteb $>tates 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(l). The Tucker Act itself "does not create a cause of action." RHI
Holdings, Inc. v. United States, 142 F.3d 1459, 1461 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Thus, a plaintiff
must identify a "separate source of substantive law that creates the right to money
damages" in order to invoke the Court's jurisdiction over a claim. Greenlee County, Ariz.
v. United States, 487 F.3d 871, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Fisher v. United States, 402
F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Failure to establish jurisdiction under the Tucker Act
requires the Court to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(l). Outlaw v. United States, 116 Fed. Cl.
656, 658 (2014). When deciding a Rule 12(b)(l) motion to dismiss, a court must assume
all the undisputed facts in the complaint are true and draw reasonable inferences in the non-
movant' s favor. Erikson v. Pardus, 551U.S.178, 189 (1936). Courts hold pleadings made
by pro se plaintiffs to a less stringent standard and liberally construe language in the
plaintiff's favor. Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94; Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
However, none of Mr. Krukowski's claims survive the 12(b)(l) motion to dismiss.
This Court only has jurisdiction to entertain claims against the United States. 28
U.S.C. § 1491(a)(l); United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941); Moore v. Public
Defenders Office, 76 Fed. Cl. 617, 620 (2007) ("When a plaintiff's complaint names
private parties, or local, county, or state agencies, rather than federal agencies, this court
has no jurisdiction .... "). Mr. Krukowski has not named any federal agency or the United
States as a defendant.
This Court does not possess jurisdiction over "any claim ... pending in any other
court .... " 28 U.S.C. § 1500. Claims based on substantially the same facts are considered
the same claim for purposes of§ 1500. Pellegrini v. United States, 103 Fed. Cl. 47, 50
(2012). This complaint and the complaint currently filed in the U.S. District Court of
3
Nevada cite the same facts to allege very similar claims. Def.'s Mot., Att. A (Mr.
Krukowski claims he "was forced to answer questions" and that his criminal record was
"altered and modified."). Mr. Krukowski states that the complaint filed in the U.S. District
Court of Nevada contains the same "violations." Pl.'s Resp. at 15.
This Court does not have the authority to hear claims that sound in tort. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1491(a)(l); Shearin v. United States, 992 F.2d 1195, 1197 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Federal
Tort Claims Act grants jurisdiction to hear tort claims exclusively to federal district courts.
28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(l). Claims of false arrest, abuse and negligence sound in tort.
O'Conner v. United States, 355 F. App'x 412, 413 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Dumonde v. United
States, 87 Fed. Cl. 651, 653 (2009). Identity theft is also a tort over which this Court does
not have jurisdiction. Aldridge v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 113, 120 (2005). Thus, the
Court does not have jurisdiction to hear Mr. Krukowski's claims of false arrest, abuse and
neglect in custody, and identity theft.
Mr. Krukowski also asserts violations of his constitutional rights. He claims
violations of the Fourth Amendment because he was subjected to an illegal search and
seizure, and violations of his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment during
and after his trial. Comp!. at 3. However, this Court does not have jurisdiction over Fourth
Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment violations because monetary damages are not
available under either of these provisions. Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed.
Cir. 1997); LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Stephanatos v.
United States, 81 Fed. Cl. 440, 445 (2008).
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Government's motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. In addition, Mr. Krukowski's
motion to appoint counsel is DENIED as moot. See Dkt. No. 12. No costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
THOMAS C. WHEELER
Judge
4