3Jn tbe Wniteb ~tates rourt of jfeberal <!rlaims
No. 15-lOC
(Filed: June 24, 2015)
**********************
JOSE LOPEZ HERNANDEZ,
FILED
Plaintiff,
JUN 2 4 2015
v.
U.S. COURT OF
FEDERAL CLAIMS
THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
**********************
ORDER
Plaintiff, appearing prose, filed a handwritten complaint and a motion
to proceed in forma pauper is on January 5, 2015. Defendant filed a motion to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on March 5, 2015. Plaintiff has not responded
to that motion. Because it is clear that we lack jurisdiction, it is unnecessary
to wait for plaintiffs response.
Plaintiff alleges that he was denied treatment for Hepatitis C while
serving a federal prison sentence. He was diagnosed with Hepatitis C on April
7, 2009, at the Federal Correctional Institution in Florence, Colorado and again
on February 3, 2012, after his transfer to the Butner Penitentiary in North
Carolina. A biopsy report dated August 29, 2012, also indicated that plaintiff
had contracted Hepatitis C. Plaintiff alleges that he was repeatedly denied
treatment by the doctors, clinical directors, and wardens of all four prisons in
which he was incarcerated. It appears from the documents attached to
plaintiffs complaint that plaintiff was eventually prescribed the drug
Interferon to treat his condition in May 2014, but, according to Mr.
Hernandez, it has failed to "alleviate [his) condition." Compl. 6.
Plaintiff initiated a request for administrative remedy with the Federal
Bureau of Prisons on April 10, 2013. After a series of appeals, plaintiffs
request was denied. Plaintiff then filed suit in this court on January 5, 2015.
Plaintiff alleges a cause of action under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the
Bureau of Prisons failure to treat his condition. Comp I. 1.
Pro se plaintiffs are afforded latitude in their filings, see, e.g., Henke
v. United States, 60 F.3d 795, 799 (Fed. Cir. 1995), and are entitled to a liberal
construction of their pleadings, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972) (requiring that allegations contained in a pro se complaint be held to
"less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers").
Nonetheless, the prose plaintiff is not relieved of his duty to meet the court's
jurisdictional requirements. See Henke, 60 F.3d at 799.
The Tucker Act, this court's primary grant of jurisdiction, only gives
this court authority to "render judgment upon any claim against the United
States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any
regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract
with the United States ... in cases not sounding in tort." 28 U.S.C. §
1491(a)(l) (2012). Specifically excluded from the court's jurisdiction are
cases involving allegations of tortious conduct, such as "Gross Medical
Malpractice," "Emotional Distress," and "Medical Negligence" complained
of by plaintiff. Comp I. 6. Instead, claims based on the Federal Tort Claims
Act are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the district courts. 28 U.S.C. §
1346(b)(l) (2012); US. Marine, Inc. v. United States, 722 F.3d 1360, 1366
(Fed. Cir. 2013).
The court's rules require that, "if the court determines at any time that
it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." RCFC
12(h)(3). Because we lack jurisdiction over the complaint, it must be
dismissed. Accordingly, the following is ordered:
1. For good causes shown, plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma
pauperis is granted.
2. Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to dismiss the complaint for lack of
jurisdiction and enter judgment accordingly.
2
fuc~~
ERIC G. BRUGG
Judge
3