Greene v. United States ( 2023 )

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 22-1711C
(Filed: May 15, 2023)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
***************************************
CEDRIC GREENE, *
*
Plaintiff, *
*
v. *
*
THE UNITED STATES, *
*
Defendant. *
*
***************************************
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Cedric Greene, proceeding pro se, brings claims arising from allegedly
unfair actions by the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, where Plaintiff has had other litigation pending. See Complaint (ECF 1).
The government has moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1).1 The motion to dismiss
is GRANTED.
The Tucker Act limits this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction — its authority
to pass judgment on the cases before it — to specific types of claims, most commonly
claims for money damages. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); see also Brown v. United
States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“The Court of Federal Claims is a court of
limited jurisdiction.”). Perhaps confusingly for pro se litigants, it is not a forum for
“federal claims” generally. Claims that are outside the Court’s jurisdiction must be
dismissed. RCFC 12(h)(3). “In determining jurisdiction, a court must accept as true
1See Mot. to Dismiss (ECF 10); Pl.’s Resp. (ECF 16); Def.’s Reply (ECF 17). Plaintiff’s motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 2) is GRANTED. Plaintiff has filed a “Motion for Leave to File New
Litigation” (ECF 13), which is DENIED AS MOOT because this Court lacks jurisdiction over the
present case. This Court, in this case, cannot grant or deny leave to Mr. Greene to file another
complaint raising different claims, although it bears emphasis that all claims in this Court must
comply with the Court’s Rules and be within the Court’s jurisdiction. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1500(precluding this Court from exercising jurisdiction over “any claim for or in respect to which the
plaintiff or his assignee has pending in any other court or process against the United States”).
Plaintiff’s “Clarification Motion and Free Age[nc]y Request” (ECF 15) is DENIED AS MOOT for the
same reason. Plaintiff’s reply in support of his motion for leave, received on February 17, 2023, and
his request for judicial notice, received March 17, shall be FILED BY MY LEAVE, but are DENIED
to the extent they request any relief.
all undisputed facts asserted in the plaintiff’s complaint and draw all reasonable
inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States, 659
F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795, 797 (Fed.
Cir. 1995)). “Although a pro se plaintiff’s complaint is held to a less stringent standard
than those prepared by counsel, pro se litigants are not excused from meeting
jurisdictional requirements.” Spengler v. United States, 688 F. App’x 917, 920 (Fed.
Cir. 2017) (citations omitted) (citing Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980), and Kelley
v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
Plaintiff fails to allege any claim over which this Court might exercise
jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s claims, as mentioned, go to the conduct of a federal district
court. This Court does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of district courts.
See, e.g., Innovair Aviation Ltd. v. United States, 632 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(explaining that the Court of Federal Claims “does not have jurisdiction to review the
decision of district courts and cannot entertain ... claim[s] that require[ ] the court to
scrutinize the actions of another tribunal”) (internal quotes omitted); Joshua v.
United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding that the Court of Federal
Claims “does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of district courts ... relating
to proceedings before those courts”). Review of the district court’s handling of
Plaintiff’s claims lies in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Even if this Court did have jurisdiction to review the district court’s decisions,
Plaintiff characterizes the district court’s alleged misconduct as “negligence,” a tort
claim outside this Court’s jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); Shearin v. United
States, 992 F.2d 1195, 1197 (Fed. Cir. 1993); cf. Tort, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th
ed. 2019). Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss mentions the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities, Due Process, and Equal Protection Clauses.
Pl.’s Resp. at 3. This Court lacks jurisdiction over claims based on those constitutional
provisions because they do not mandate payment of money. LeBlanc v. United States,
50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses);
McCullough v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 1, 4 (2006) (same); Wall v. United States,
141 Fed. Cl. 585, 598 (2019) (Privileges or Immunities Clause). Even with due
allowance for Plaintiff’s pro se status, he has not identified any factual or legal basis
for recovery over which this Court might have jurisdiction.
-2-
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and
the case is DISMISSED, without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction. See Aerolineas
Argentinas v. United States, 77 F.3d 1564, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“[I]n the absence of
subject matter jurisdiction there can be no preclusive findings or conclusions on the
merits, and dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is without prejudice.”).
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Stephen S. Schwartz
STEPHEN S. SCHWARTZ
Judge
-3-