# 0ffi8#$ru&t

lln @,Ilt 

# @nftp! 

# 5tsttg @.ourt

# of

# feDrrul @tsfms
No. 15-408 C 

### This Opinion 

### Will Not Be 

### Published 

### in the U.S.

### Court of Federal Claims 

### Reporter Because 

# It Does 

### Not

### Add Significantly to the 

### Bodv of 

### Law. 

# FILED

(Filed: April 23,2015) APR 2

### 3 2015 U.S. COURT OF FEDERALCLATMg E. 

### DRAKE, Plaintiff,

SIDNEYA. FITZWATER, era/., Defendants.



### OPINION and 

### ORDER

On

### April 22,2015, Eric Drake 

### (plaintiff) filed a

### complaint seeking $5

### million in compensation, as

### well asvarious 

### of forms injunctive relief, punitive damages, and other

### forms

### of damages. Plaintiff is an

### African-American 

### male. He contends that he has been

### discriminated against 

### in a

### variety

## ofways. In particular, 

### plaintiff asserts various Federal and Statejudges 

### in Texas have

### violated 

### plaintiff s

### constitutional and

### civil rights under various Federal statutes, such as 42 

### U.S.C. $$ 1981, 1983 and 

### 1985. Plaintifialso seeks various damages based upon actions allegedly taken by 

### private corporations and 

### individuals, including private attomeys. This court is solemnly obliged, on its own accord, to address obvious questions conceming 

### its subject matter

### jurisdiction. See 

### Mitchellv. Maurer,293 U.S.237,244 

### (1934). This court recognizes that 

### plaintiff is acting

### pro se before this court, and thus the court 

### will hold the

### form

### of plaintiff ssubmissions 

### to a less stringent standard than those drafted 

### by an

### attomey. See Reed v. United 

### States,23 

### Cl.Cr.517,521 (1991) 

### (citing Estelle v. 

### Gamble,429 

### U.5.97 

### (1976)). Having reviewed 

### plaintiff s

### complaint, this 

### court is certain that 

### it lacks

### jurisdiction to consider the claims that 

### plaintiff raises. 

### Withvery Iimited exceptions, the

### jurisdictional statutes goveming the 

### United States 

### Cout ofFederal Claims grant authority to the court 

### only to issuejudgments for money against the 

### United States and then, 

### only when they are grounded 

### in a contract, a money-mandating statute, or the 

### takinss clause 

### ofthe 

### Fifth Amendment. See United States v. Testan"424 

### U.5.392.397-98(197

### 6);25 U.S.C. $ 

### 1491. This court lacks 

### jurisdiction to entertain general 

### civil rights claims that

are not based upon an appropriate money-mandating 

### provision. See, e.g., Sanders 

### v. United States, 34 Fed. 

### Cl. 75, 80 ( 1995), 

### affd, 104 F.3d 376 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 522 

### U.S. 831 (1997); 

### Martinez v. 

### United States, 26

### Cl .Ct. 1471,1476 (1992), 

### affd,11 F.3d 1069 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1993). 

### Nor does 

### it hear claims sounding in

### tort, or claims 

### involving federal, state or local 

### officials. See 28 

### U.S.C. 

### $ 1491; 

### Brown v. United States, i 05 

### F.3d 621, 623-24 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1997); Shewfelt v. 

### UnitedStates,l04F.3d 1333, 1337-38 (Fed. 

### Cir. 

### 1997). In 

### particular, this court also lacks 

### jurisdiction over claims against Federal and state

### judges. see 

### Grffith v. united 

### stqtes,20l5 

## wL 430285, 

### *2-3 (Fed. 

### Cl. Jan. 30, 2015); Hover 

### v. United States,113 Fed. 

### C|.295'296 (2013)' 

### aff'd, 566 Fed.

### Appx.918 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2014);see also 

### Stumpv. Sparlonan,435 U.S. 

### 349'355-56(1978). Moreover, to the extent that

### plaintiff states claims under 42 

### U.S.C. $$ 1981, 1983, 

### or 1985, 

### it is 

### sufficienttoobservethatthecourtdoesnothavejurisdictionunderanyofthosestatutes.,Se€28 U.S.C. $ l3a6@X1);

## Jffirsonv. United 

### States,104 Fed. 

### Cl. 81, 89 (2012); Hernandez

## v United States.93 Fed. 

### Cl. 193, 197-98 (2010); 

### Marlin v. United 

### States,63 Fed. 

### Cl. 475,476 (2005)'
Based onthe foregoing, this court, therefore, lacks

### jurisdiction over all claims made bythe 

## plaintiff. Accordingly, the 

### Clerk shall dismiss 

### plaintilfs complaint for lack

### ofjurisdiction. 

### IT IS SO 

### ORDERED.