Carlos Peterson v. United States

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
No. 14-39C
(Filed: January 22, 2014)
)
CARLOS PETERSON, )
)
Pro Se Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
THE UNITED STATES, )
)
Defendant. )
)
)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR
LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION
The court is in receipt of Carlos Peterson’s (“plaintiff”) complaint, filed January
16, 2014, against Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of New York (“defendant”). In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that
Judge Kahn committed neglect, favoritism, corruption, and fraud when he presided over
plaintiff’s case in the Northern District of New York. Plaintiff seeks 36 million dollars in
damages, as well and injunctive and punitive relief. For the reasons below, this court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case and therefore it must be DISMISSED. 1
Under Rule 12(h)(3) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, “If
the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must
dismiss the action.” Moreover, “subject-matter jurisdiction, because it involves a court's
power to hear a case, can never be forfeited or waived.” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546
1
Along with the complaint, plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis status.
The request is procedurally deficient. Nonetheless, the application is GRANTED for the sole
purpose of ruling on this motion.
U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (quoting United States v. Cotton, 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 plaintiff’s claims, the case must be
DISMISSED. The clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nancy B. Firestone
NANCY B. FIRESTONE
Judge
2