oRl0l[tAt

Iln t\e @nite[ btater @ourt of felrrsl @lufnrs

No. 14-380C

(Filed: May 14,2014)

FILED

DEAN A. COCHRUN,

MAY 14 20t4

U.s.@URTOF

FEDERALC{.AM

Plaintiff,

THE LINITED STATES,

Defendant.

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

In this case, plaintiff Dean A. Cochrun ("Mr. Cochrun") alleges that the South

Dakota Department of Social Services, acting under the authority ofthe United States

Department of Health and Human Services, has violated state and federal kidnapping

statutes by removing his three children from his care without the proper showing. Mr.

Cochrun further alleges that he and his wife, Jamie Lynn Cochrun, have been falsely

arrested and imprisoned as an act ofretaliation.

Mr. Cochrun alleges that "Jurisdiction comes under the Federal Tort Claims Act

and all pertinent parts inclusive therein. This statement ofJurisdiction includes but is not

limited to 28 U.S.C. 9g 2674 and 1402 (b) as this is the place where the Act giving rise to

the Claims took place and where the Parties reside." Compl. at 1, ECF No. 1.

Jurisdiction is a threshold matter. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S.

83,94-95 (1998). Under Rule l2(h)(3) ofthe Rules ofthe United States Court ofFederal

Claims, "[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-rnatter jurisdiction, the

court must dismiss the action." In so determining, the court may consider the issue of

jurisdiction sua sponte. Folden v. United States ,379 F .3d 1344, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

In considering a case brought by a pro se plaintiff, the court holds "the pleading 'to less

sftingent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."' Johnson v. United States,

411 F. App'x 303, 305 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,520

(1972)). Despite this permissive standard, a pro se plaintiff must still satisfu the court's
jurisdictional requirements. Bemard v. United States, 59 Fed. Cl.497,499 (2004) ("This

latitude, however, does not relieve a pro se plaintiff from meeting jurisdictional

requirements."), affd 98 F. App'x 860 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

This court is granted jurisdiction by 28 U.S.C. $ 1491, which states, in relevant

part, that this court does not have jurisdiction over claims involving torts:

The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to render

judgment upon any claim against the United States founded either upon the

Constitution, or any Act ofCongress or any regulation ofan 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. $ 1a91(a)(l) (emphasis added). In this case, the complaint plainly states that it

derives jurisdiction from the Federal Tort Claims Act, meaning that the case sounds in

tort and is outside the jurisdiction of this court. Moreover, Congress has granted

exclusive jurisdiction over such cases to the United States District Courts. 28 U.S.C. $

1346(bXl). As a result, the complaint is hereby.DISMISSED without prejudice. The

clerk is directed to enterjudgment accordingly.'

IT IS SO ORDERED.

' Plaintiff has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and a motion

for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 3. The court GRANTS plaintiff leave to proceed in

forma pauperis. As the case is dismissed, the motion for appointment is MOOT.