Matthews v. United States

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. l4-372C (Filed: May 9, 2014) >l<>|<>l<>|<>l<>|<>l<>l<>l<>l<>|<>l<>l<>l¢>|<>l<>l<>l<>l<=|<*>l=>l<=l=>l<>|< BRIAN DAVID MATTHEWS, Plaintiff v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendanl. >l<>|=>l<*>l<>k>k>k>k>k>l<>k>l<>k>|<>|<>l<>l<>|<>l<>|<>|<>l<>|<>l<>|< ORDER Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed a complaint and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on May l, 2014.1 To the extent that the court can discern what plaintiff is alleging, the complaint appears to allege the unauthorized use of plaintiff`s name by an agent of the United States. That agent is identified as the "‘STATE OF WASHINGTON’; and/or that entity which identifies itself as ‘Department of Corrections’." Compl. 1 4. Plaintiff" s address indicates that he is incarcerated in the state of Washington. Jurisdiction is a threshold matter. See Steel Co. v. Citz'zens for a Better Env ’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998). The court may raise the issue sua sponte at any time. Fola’en v. United Slates, 379 F.3d 1344, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2()()4). Although plaintiff is appearing pro se, and pro se litigants are afforded latitude, that cannot excuse jurisdictional failings. See Kelly v. U.S. Sec ’y of Dep’z‘ ofLabor, 812 F.Zd 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ("a court may not similarly take a liberal view of that jurisdictional requirement and set a different rule for pro se litigants only"). lt is unnecessary to wait for further filings in this case because it is clear on the face of the complaint that plaintiff 1 F or good cause shown, we grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis