Peterson v. United States

0 ,.GINAL eberal 535 U.S. 625 , 630 (2002)). When
reviewing a complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff, courts must grant the plaintiff a liberal
construction of the pleadings and hold the plaintiff to "less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
Even so, pro se plaintiffs are still required to meet the jurisdictional requirements of the
court. Minehan v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. 249, 253 (2007); Bernard v. United States,
59 Fed. Cl. 497, 499, aff d, 98 F. App 'x 860 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The subject matter jurisdiction of this court is limited to claims against the United
States. See United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) ("[The Court of Federal
Claims'] 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); Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621 , 624 (Fed. Cir. 1997),
reh'g denied (1997); Smith v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 581, 583-84 (2011) (citing
Moore v. Pub. Defender's Office, 76 Fed. Cl. 617, 620 (2007)). This court does not have
jurisdiction to hear complaints challenging the actions of other federal courts, judges, or
their employees. Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Accordingly, because this court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims, the case must be
DISMISSED. The clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2