Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-02544/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-02544-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JDDL

WO SVK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Forrest Dunbar, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

U.S.D.A. Forest Service, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-2544-PCT-SMM (MEA)

ORDER

Plaintiff Forrest Dunbar, confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex in Yuma,

Arizona, filed a pro se civil action against the United States Department of Agriculture Forest

Service alleging breach of contract. Plaintiff did not pay the $350.00 civil action filing fee

or file a proper Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis with his Complaint, so by Order

filed November 6, 2006, the Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file a proper Application to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc.#6).

On November 24, 2006, Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(Doc. #9). This Application is also defective as it does not contain a certified trust account

statement from the Arizona Department of Corrections Central Office as required by this

Court’s November 6th Order; the Application will be denied. However, the Court will not

give Plaintiff another opportunity to file a proper Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

with this Court because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the action. The

Case 3:06-cv-02544-SMM--MEA Document 10 Filed 12/14/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JDDL - 2 -

Court will direct the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the Court of Claims and to close

the civil case opened in this Court.

I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against

a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised

claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 

Plaintiff’s Complaint will be transferred to the Court of Claims, which has exclusive

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.

II. Jurisdiction of the Claims is with the Court of Claims

Plaintiff has filed an action claiming breach of contract by the United States

Department of Agriculture Forest Service. According to the Complaint and Motion for

Injunction and Restraining Order, Plaintiff alleges that he had a contract with the Forest

Service that “involves the purchase of a common variety material known as flagstone by

Plaintiff from Defendant” (Doc.#5, ¶ 3). He alleges that Defendants breached the contract

by instructing Plaintiff’s subcontractors to vacate the contract area and by imposing an

unconscionable bond increase. (Id., ¶¶4-6.)

The Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 601-613, provides the exclusive

remedies in the Federal Circuit for federal contractors with claims against the government

relating to a contract. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2). In Mendenhall v. Kusicko, 857 F.2d 1378,

1379 (9th Cir. 1988), the plaintiff appealed the district court’s dismissal of his contract

claims against the Forest Service, which were dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiff’s claim against the Forest Service for

breach of timber sales contracts was subject to the CDA because his claim was founded on

an express contract within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) and a timber sale contract

was one for the disposal of personal property within the meaning of 41 U.S.C. § 602(a). The

Case 3:06-cv-02544-SMM--MEA Document 10 Filed 12/14/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JDDL - 3 -

court ordered the action transferred to the Court of Claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631,

which directs that when a court finds that it lacks jurisdiction, it shall transfer the action to

the proper court if such transfer is in the interests of justice. Id.

Here, as in Mendenhall, Plaintiff alleges claims based on express contract and the

flagstone purchase contract is one for the disposal of personal property. Therefore,

Plaintiff’s claims are subject to the CDA, and exclusive jurisdiction lies in the Court of

Claims; therefore, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The Court will transfer the 

action to the Court of Claims for further proceedings. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s Application Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. # 9)

is denied without prejudice. 

(2) The Clerk of Court must transfer the action to the Court of Claims and close

the civil case opened in this Court.

DATED this 8th day of December, 2006.

Case 3:06-cv-02544-SMM--MEA Document 10 Filed 12/14/06 Page 3 of 3