Taebel v. United States

B,fiIN AL l|ntbe @nite! $tates @ourt of :fe!Bra[ ['[sims No. 18-63C FILED (Filed: January 26, 2018) JAN 2 6 2018 NOT FOR PUBLICATION U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS MITCHELL T. TAEBEL, Plaintiff, Pro Se Complaint; Sua Sponte Dismissal for Want of Jurisdiction, RCFC l2(hX3). THE LTNITED STATES, Defendant. ORDER The following items are currently before the court in this matter: (1) the complaint of pro se plaintiff Mitchell Taebel, ECF No. 1, filed under seal on January I l, 2018;l (2) plaintiff s application to proceed in forma nauperis, ECF No. 5, fied Janvary 22, 2018; (3) plaintiff s motion to unseal the complaint, ECF No' 6, filed January 23' 2018; and, (4) an unfiled letter from plaintiff, received in the clerk's office on January 22,2018' requesting electronic filing for all of his cases filed in this court. Because the court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff s claims, the court must dismiss this case pursuant to Rule l2(hx3) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC)' See RCFC l2(hX3) (.,If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-mattel jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action."). The court's jurisdictional analysis is set forth below. L Background Plaintiff s complaint states that it is a petition that "raises constitutional violations by the city [Los Angeles] to the U.S. Court." Compl', ECF No. I at l. Indeed, the complaint names the City of Los Angeles as the defendant in this suit' Id. The one-paraglaph complaint alleges that local police violated plaintifl's rights. Id. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages in the amount of $250,000,000. Id. I Upon receipt, the clerk's office filed plaintiffs complaint under seal because it contained personal identifiers, i.e., his social security number' ?olb 3B1o EBqq'{t!!-1191 IL Pro Se Litigants The court acknowledges that pro se plaintiffs are not expected to frame issues with the precision of a common law pleading. Roche v. USPS,828 F.2d 1555, 1558(Fed. Cir. I 987). Therefore, plaintiffs complaint has been reviewed carefully to ascertain whether, given the most favorable reading, it supports jurisdiction in this court. III. Jurisdiction "A court may and should raise the question of its jurisdiction sua soonte at any time it appears in doubt." Arctic Comer. Inc. v. United States, 845 F.2d 999, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citation omitted). The Tucker Act delineates this court's jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. S l49l (2012). That statute "confers jurisdiction upon the Court ofFederal Claims over the specified categories of actions brought against the United States." Fisher v. United States , 402 F .3d 1167 , 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations omitted). These include money damage claims against the federal government founded upon the Constitution, an act ofCongress, a regulation promulgated by an executive department, any express or implied contract with the United States, or any claim for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort. Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. $ 1491(aXl)). IV. Analysis Plaintiff s complaint alleges civil rights violations by the arresting police officers. It is well settled that violations of constitutional rights, such as the rights to due process and equal protection, do not fall within this court's jurisdiction. Brown v. United States, I 05 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed. Cir. I 997). Further, the only proper defendant in this court is the United States. E4, United States v. Sherwood,312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) (citations omitted). Because plaintiff seeks relief based on civil rights violations committed by local police officers, his claims are not within the jurisdiction of this court. E.q., Jefferson v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 81, 88-89 (2012). V. Conclusion The complaint in this case must be dismissed.2 Accordingly, plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED for the limited purpose of determining this court's jurisdiction. Plaintiffls motion to unseal the complaint, ECF No. 6, filed January 23,2018, is DENIED as moot. : The court has considered transfer of this suit to another federal court, but declines to do so because civil rights claims in Califomia are subject to a one-year statute of limitations, a period which has run on the claims asserted here. See. e.s., Silva v. Crain, 169 F.3d 608. 610 (9th Cir. 1999). The clerk's office is hereby directed to FILE plaintifls January 22,2018 letter as a motion for a case management/electronic case filing (CM/ECF) account; and, once filed, plaintiff s motion is DENIED as moot. The clerk's olfice is directed to ENTER judgment for defendant DISMISSING plaintiff s complaint for lack ofjurisdiction, without prejudice, pusuant to RCFC l2(hX3). Additionally, the clerk's office is directed to return any future filings not in compliance with this court's rules to plaintiff, unfiled, without further order ofthe court. IT IS SO ORDERED.