Finn v. United States

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 22-1797
Filed: April 12, 2023
)
GEORGE H. FINN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
THE UNITED STATES, )
)
Defendant. )
)
ORDER
SMITH, Senior Judge
On December 6, 2022, plaintiff, George H. Finn, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint in
this Court. In his Complaint, plaintiff seeks review of a decision from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of New York. See generally Complaint, ECF No. 1 [hereinafter
Compl.]. Specifically, plaintiff alleges various errors stemming from his case in the Northern
District Court of New York, such as the Court’s denial of a jury trial. Id. at 14 (stating that the
District Court “pulled the United States into the corruption and are abusing the Unites States
Constitution by denying victims the right to a jury analysis guaranteed by the United States
Constitution Amendment VII and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 38”).
This Court’s jurisdictional grant is primarily set forth by the Tucker Act, which grants
this Court subject-matter jurisdiction over claims brought against the United States that are
grounded in a money-mandating source of law and do not sound in tort. 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1).
Rule 12(h)(3) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) states that “[i]f the court
determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the
action.” R. Ct. Fed. Cl. 12(h)(3).
Here, plaintiff alleges that the Northern District Court of New York denied him the right
to a jury trial—a right which plaintiff says is protected under the Constitution and the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. See Compl. at 3. In essence, plaintiff’s Complaint appears to be an
appeal of the Northern District Court of New York’s decision. The Court of Federal Claims,
however, “does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of district courts.” Allustiarte v.
United States, 256 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378,
380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Upon sua sponte review, this Court finds that plaintiff’s allegations do not
give rise to any cause of action for which this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction. As such, this
Court does not have authority to decide plaintiff’s case, and therefore must dismiss the
Complaint pursuant to RCFC 12(h)(3).
For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED, sua sponte,
pursuant to RCFC 12(h)(3). Consequently, defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is hereby FOUND
MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to take the necessary steps to dismiss this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Loren A. Smith
Loren A. Smith,
Senior Judge
-2-