Pierce v. United States

ORIGINAI.
litr tltt @nitr! $ltuttg [.turt of ftDtru[ @lsimg
No. 14-105C
FILED
(Filed: August 13, 2014)
AUG 13 2014
U,S, COURT OF
FEDERALCI.AI['S
RONALD EDWARD PIERCE"
Pro Se Plaintiff,
Motion to dismiss, Rule l2(b)(1) (lack
of subject jurisdiction); State law
claims; Americans with Disabilities
THE UNITED STATES, Act,42 U.S.C. $$ 12101, 12131,
12132 ; Administrative Procedure Act,
Defendant. 42 U.S.C. $$ 701, 702.
Ronald Edward Pierce, Squaw Valley, CA, p4-q9 plaintiff.
Michael D. Snyder, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice,
Washington, DC, with whom were Stuart F. Delery, Assislant Attomey General, and
Robert E. Kirschman, -Ir., Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, for defendant.
OPINION DISMISSING COMPLAINT
FIRESTONE, -/r;dge.
Pending before this court is defendant the United States' ("the government")
motion to dismiss the complaint in the above-captioned action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(bXl) of the Rules of the United States Court ofFederal
Claims ("RCFC"), Docket No. 14, filed June 5, 2014. In the complaint, p1q_g9 plaintiff
Ronald Edward Pierce ("Mr. Pierce" or "plaintiff') alleges that the United States Tax
Court ("tax court") failed to accommodate his disabilities when it refused to change the
location and timing of a trial scheduled in a tax case he had filed in Califomia. Mr.
Pierce also alleges that the United States District Court for the Eastem District of
Califomia failed to accommodate his disabilities when it refused to intervene on his
behalfbefore the tax court. Mr. Pierce charses that the tax court and the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Califomia are liable to him for damases under
the state law by failing to accommodate his disabilities. Specifically, Mr. Pierce claims
that he is entitled to damages under the California Unruh Civil Rights Act ("Unruh Act").
Cal. Civ. Code $ 51.
According to Mr. Pierce, damages under California law are available against
entities that violate the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 C'ADA'), 42 U.S.C. $
12101 etseq. Mr. Pierce claims that this court has jurisdiction to hear his case because
the above-referenced federal courts violated his rights under the ADA. He also argues
that this court has jurisdiction to hear his case and award him damages under the
Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. $ 702.
The govemment argues that this court must dismiss Mr. Pierce's case on the
grounds that this court does not have jurisdiction to award damages under the Unruh Act,
the ADA, or the APA. For the reasons explained below, this court GRANTS the
govemment's motion to dismiss.
I. FACTUALBACKGROUND
The complaint includes the following allegations. On February 21,2012, plaintiff
filed a suit in the tax court challenging a tax deficiency with the Internal Revenue
Service. After receiving a second notice of deficiency, plaintiff filed a second suit, and
selected Fresno, Califomia as his preferred place for trial. Plaintiff alleges that, because
he is disabled, he could not travel to San Francisco, Califomia for a trial. However, as
plaintiffhad elected to bring his case as a regular tax case rather than as a small tax oase,
and because only small tax cases are heard in Fresno, the trial was scheduled to be heard
in San Francisco.
After receiving notice of the trial, Mr. Pierce filed a motion to change the place of
trial to Fresno. When this motion was denied due to plaintiff s case's classification,
plaintiff contacted the tax court's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission officer,
who instructed him to refile his motion. Thereafter, the motion was granted and the trial
was re-scheduled for February 3,2014 in Fresno. The case was also reclassified as a
small tax case.
After the trial was rescheduled, Mr. Pierce sought a continuance of his case,
arguing that a continuance was necessary to accommodate his disability and in order for
him to deal with the additional cases he had pending in the tax court. Plaintiffs request
was made infbrmally to various employees of the tax court. When his request was not
granted, he sought help from the United States District Court for the Eastem District of
Califomia, and then from the United States District Court for the Central District of
califomia. After those efforts failed, Mr. Pierce filed a request for judicial notice with
the tax court requesting that the court acknowledge its alleged lack of accommodation.
After the tax court entered an order requiring plaintiffto appear at the scheduled date and
time for trial, plaintiff filed a "Swom Affidavit of Prejudice" alleging that the judge to
whom the case was assigned was not impartial. The tax court then entered an order again
requiring plaintiffto appear, stating that failure to appear could result in dismissal of the
case. On February 6,2014, plaintiff filed his complaint in this court.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The United States Court of Federal Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction.
Under the Tucker Act, the United States Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction to hear
claims against the united states that are "founded either upon the constitution, or any
Act ofCongress or any regulation ofan executive department, or upon any express or
implied contract with the United states, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages rn
cases not sounding in tort." 28 u.s.c. g la9l(a) (2011). where the court has not been
granted jurisdiction to hear a claim, the case must be dismissed. See Arbaugh v. y&H
Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). Subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived or
forfeited; when a court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction, the complaint must be
dismissed in its entirety. Spg John R. Sand & Gravel co. v. United States,457 F.3d
1345,1354 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction, Alder
Terrace. Inc. v. United stares, l6l F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. cir. l99g) (citing McNutt v.
General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, lg9 (1936), and must do so by a
preponderance of evidence, Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exchanee service g46 F .2d
,
746,748 (Fed. cir. 1988). when ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack ofjurisdiction,
the court considers uncontested facts alleged in the complaint to be ftue and correct.
Reynolds, 846 F .2d at 7 47 . The court may also consider materials outside of the
pleadings to determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over a claim.
Aviation
Software. Inc. v. United States, 101 Fed. C\.656,661 (2011) (citing Rocovich v. United
States,933 F.2d991,993 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
The court holds plq_Se "pleading[s] 'to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers." Johnson v. United States, 4l I Fed. Appx. 303, 305 (Fed.
Cir. 2010) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,520 (1972)). Nonetheless, a pre_le
plaintiff must still satisf the court's jurisdictional requirements. Bernard v. united
States, 59 Fed. Cl. 497,499 (200a) ("This latitude, however, does not relieve a plq_qg
plaintiff from meeting jurisdictional requirements."), aff d, 98 Fed. Appx. 860 (Fed. cir.
2004).
III. DISCUSSION
In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that the tax court and United States District
court for the Eastern District of califomia failed to accommodate his disability as
required by the ADA, and thus these courts owe him damages under califomia law. In
support of his complaint, Mr. Pierce cites Munson v. Del raco. Inc. ,46 cal.4th 661 (cal.
2009). Apparently, under california state law, an individual who has an ADA claim may
also obtain damages under the Unruh Act. Id. Mr. pierce argues that he is also entitled
to relief in this court under the APA, which according to Mr. pierce, gives this court
jurisdiction to review the decisions of other federal couns.
ln its motion to dismiss, the govemment argues that this court lacks jurisdiction
over Mr. Pierce's state-law damage claims and over his claims based on the ApA. This
court has reviewed all of the pleadings and briefs filed by the parties and finds for the
reasons that follow that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. First, this court lacks
jurisdiction over actions arising under the Unruh Act because "'[c]laims founded on state
law are also outside the scope of the limited jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims."'
Waltnerv.UnitedStat€s,98Fed. C1.737,764(Fed.Cl.2011), af?d,679 F.3d 1329(Fed.
Cir.2012) (citing Souders v. South Carolina Pub. Serv. Auth. ,497 F.3d 1303, 1307 (Fed.
Cir. 2007)). Second, to the extent Mr. Pierce is claiming a right to damages stemming
from violations of the federal ADA, his complaint also must be dismissed because the
ADA does not apply to the federal govemment, and thus this court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over an ADA claim. Allen v. United States,546F. App'x.949,951 (Fed.
Cir. 2013) (citing Searles v. United States, 88 Fed. Cl. 801, 805 (2009)). The ADA
provides that "no qualified individual with a disability shall by reason ofsuch disability,
be excluded from participation . . . services, programs, or activities of a public entity or
be subjected to discrimination by any such entity." 42 U.S.C. $ 12132. A,,public entity,,
is defined as "(A) any State, or local government; (B) any department, agency, special
purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State... or local government ...." 42
u.s.c. $ 12131(l). The ADA is not applicable to the tax court, the united states District
court for the Eastern District of califomia, or any other federal government entity
because the ADA definition of "public entity" includes only state and local govemment
entities. Gray v. United States, 69 Fed. cl. 95, 101 n.5 (2005); United states v. wishart,
146 F. App'x. 171 (9th cir. 2005). In such circumstances, there has not been a waiver of
sovereign immunity for claims against the United states under the ADA and the case
must be dismissed. Gray, 69 Fed. Cl. at 102.
Finally, this court does not have jurisdiction to hear plaintiff s case under the APA.
Contrary to plaintiff s contentions, the APA does not provide for review of the actions of
other federal courts. By its plain language, the APA provides only for review of "agency
action," which does not include decisions of the tax court or federal iudiciarv.t 5 u.s.c.
5 702.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the govemment's motion to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction under RCFC l2(bXl) is GRANTED.2 The clerk is directed to enrer
judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
' The APA reads, in relevant part:
(b) For the purpose of this chapter--
(l) "agency" means each authority of the Govemment of the United States,
whether or not it is within or subject to review by another agency, but does not
include-
(B) the courts of the United Stares . . . .
5 U.S.C. $ 701.
2
In addition, plaintiffhas filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for
sanctions. court hereby GRANTS the in forma pauperis appli"ation fo. the purpose of
_This
resolving this motion. While the motion for sanctiooidols specify the conduct alleged
not to
have violated plaintiffs rights, an order from the tax court dismissing plaintilps
case foi iack of
prosecution is attached to the motion. Because this court does not hivl
lurisdiction over
plaintifPs case, the motion for sanctions must be DENIED as well.