NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`MATTHEW CURRY,
`Plaintiff-Appellant
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES,
`Defendant-Appellee
`______________________
`
`2019-1486
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
`in No. 1:18-cv-01363-MMS, Chief Judge Margaret M.
`Sweeney.
`
`______________________
`
`Decided: October 7, 2019
`______________________
`
`MATTHEW CURRY, Washington, DC, pro se.
`
`
` DELISA SANCHEZ, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
`Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
`ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
`JOSEPH H. HUNT, REGINALD THOMAS BLADES, JR., ROBERT
`EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.
` ______________________
`
`Before LOURIE, MAYER, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
`
`
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`MATTHEW CURRY,
`Plaintiff-Appellant
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES,
`Defendant-Appellee
`______________________
`
`2019-1486
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
`in No. 1:18-cv-01363-MMS, Chief Judge Margaret M.
`Sweeney.
`
`______________________
`
`Decided: October 7, 2019
`______________________
`
`MATTHEW CURRY, Washington, DC, pro se.
`
`
` DELISA SANCHEZ, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
`Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
`ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
`JOSEPH H. HUNT, REGINALD THOMAS BLADES, JR., ROBERT
`EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.
` ______________________
`
`Before LOURIE, MAYER, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
`
`
`
`2
`
`CURRY v. UNITED STATES
`
`PER CURIAM.
`Matthew Curry appeals from the decision of the United
`States Court of Federal Claims (the “Claims Court”) deny-
`ing a motion for reconsideration of a judgment dismissing
`his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for
`failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
`See Curry v. United States, No. 1:18-cv-01363, slip op. at 4–
`5 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 13, 2018) (“Decision”). Because the Claims
`Court did not err in its dismissal and subsequent denial of
`reconsideration, we affirm.
`BACKGROUND
`Curry filed a complaint and summons in the Twenty-
`First Judicial Circuit in Kankakee County, Illinois, naming
`the Illinois State Department of Law, the City of Kankakee
`Police Department, and Officers Jeffrey S. Voss and Todd
`Koerner as defendants. See Compl. Ex. A, Curry v. United
`States, No. 1:18-cv-01363 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 5, 2018), ECF No.
`1. Curry then filed two motions for summary judgment as
`well as two petitions. See id. Exs. E, F. On October 18,
`2017, the defendants filed a motion to strike and/or dis-
`miss. See id. Ex. E. Curry then filed a petition for injunc-
`tive relief. See id. Ex. G. Officers Voss and Koerner then
`removed the case to the United States District Court for
`the Central District of Illinois. See id. Ex. E.
`Following this series of events, Curry filed a complaint
`in the Claims Court attaching as exhibits the various fil-
`ings from the Illinois case, followed by a motion that the
`Claims Court determined “appear[ed] to request a finding
`of contempt against an unspecified party.” See generally
`id.; Motion, Curry v. United States, No. 1:18-cv-01363 (Fed.
`Cl. Sept. 13, 2018), ECF No. 9. The government filed a mo-
`tion to dismiss under Rules of the United States Court of
`Federal Claims (“RCFC”) 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), which the
`Claims Court granted. First, it determined that it did not
`have jurisdiction to adjudicate claims against parties other
`than the United States, see 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), or to
`
`
`
`CURRY v. UNITED STATES
`
`3
`
`adjudicate civil actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Decision,
`slip op. at 4. Second, the Claims Court determined that the
`complaint failed to allege a violation of any statute or con-
`tract that mandates compensation by the United States.
`Id. Finally, the Claims Court determined that it does not
`have jurisdiction to adjudicate violations of the Adminis-
`trative Procedure Act or claims founded on state law. Id.
`at 4–5. The court then dismissed the complaint for lack of
`jurisdiction and denied Curry’s motion filed September 13,
`2018 as moot. Id. at 5.
`The Claims Court also denied Curry’s motion for recon-
`sideration, determining that Curry had not “advanced any
`basis” for the court to grant his motion. See Order Denying
`Motion for Reconsideration at 4, Curry v. United States,
`No. 1:18-cv-01363 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 30, 2019), ECF No. 20.
`The court addressed Curry’s additional claims under 42
`U.S.C. § 1983 (the “Civil Rights Act”), the Federal Tort
`Claims Act, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
`Amendment and determined that it lacked jurisdiction
`over all of those claims. Id. at 3–4.
`Curry appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1295(a)(3).
`
`DISCUSSION
`We review de novo dismissals by the Claims Court for
`lack of jurisdiction. Frazer v. United States, 288 F.3d 1347,
`1351 (Fed. Cir. 2002). A plaintiff bears the burden of es-
`tablishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence,
`Taylor v. United States, 303 F.3d 1357, 1359 (Fed. Cir.
`2002), and the leniency afforded to pro se litigants with re-
`spect to mere formalities does not relieve them of jurisdic-
`tional requirements, Kelley v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Labor,
`812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
`Curry recites numerous statutes and case law in his
`appeal brief; however, he does not appear to explain why
`the Claims Court erred in dismissing his complaint for lack
`
`
`
`4
`
`CURRY v. UNITED STATES
`
`of subject matter jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim
`upon which relief may be granted.
`The government responds that the Claims Court
`properly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
`The government contends that, although the complaint
`cites the Tucker Act, it does not set forth any factual alle-
`gations that could be construed as a violation of the money-
`mandating constitutional provision. To the extent that any
`of the claims sound in tort, such as “wrongfully assigning
`him to [a] facility,” S.A. 14–15, the government argues that
`it would be outside of the Claims Court’s subject matter ju-
`risdiction. The government further argues that the Claims
`Court lacks jurisdiction over civil suits under 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1332, which confers original jurisdiction to district
`courts. Finally, the government asserts that the Claims
`Court does not have jurisdiction to hear any claims against
`states, localities, state and local government officials, state
`courts, state prisons, or state employees.
`We agree with the government that the Claims Court
`properly dismissed Curry’s complaint for lack of subject
`matter jurisdiction. The Tucker Act provides the Claims
`Court with jurisdiction over claims “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, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases
`not sounding in tort.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (emphases
`added).
`The Claims Court correctly determined that it did not
`have jurisdiction to adjudicate claims against parties other
`than the United States. See § 1491(a)(1). The Claims
`Court also lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate civil actions un-
`der 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which confers original jurisdiction to
`district courts. To the extent that Curry is seeking to name
`as defendants the Illinois State Department of Law, the
`City of Kankakee Police Department, and Officers Voss
`
`
`
`CURRY v. UNITED STATES
`
`5
`
`and Koerner, the Claims Court lacks jurisdiction to hear
`those claims. See Trevino v. United States, 557 F. App’x
`995, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2014). And to the extent that Curry is
`suing the Officers in their personal capacities, the Claims
`Court also lacks jurisdiction to hear those claims. See
`Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
`The Claims Court also correctly determined that it
`lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate cases that sound in tort.
`See Rick’s Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d
`1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008). It also lacks jurisdiction over
`claims alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure
`Act, see Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1313
`(Fed. Cir. 2003), the Civil Rights Act, see Marlin v. United
`States, 63 Fed. Cl. 475, 476 (2005), the Federal Tort Claims
`Act, see Wood v. United States, 961 F.2d 195, 197 (Fed. Cir.
`1992), and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amend-
`ment, see LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028
`(Fed. Cir. 1995).
`We also agree with the government that the Claims
`Court also correctly determined that the complaint failed
`to state a claim upon which relief may be granted as it does
`not allege any violation of a statute or contract that man-
`dates compensation by the United States. See United
`States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009). Accord-
`ingly, the Claims Court did not err in dismissing the com-
`plaint.
`Curry has also filed motions in this case for an order to
`retain the record and for an extraordinary writ. Because
`they present new arguments not raised below and request
`relief that this court cannot provide, the motions are de-
`nied.
`
`CONCLUSION
`We have considered Curry’s remaining arguments but
`find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we af-
`firm the Claims Court’s dismissal of this case.
`
`
`
`6
`
`CURRY v. UNITED STATES
`
`AFFIRMED
`COSTS
`
`No costs.
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
