# I n the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 12-520C (Filed: August 20, 2012)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

TRUMAN SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

OPINION DISMISSING PLAINTIF F’S COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION

Mr. Truman Scott filed his complaint in this court on August 16, 2012 as a pro se plaintiff. 1 Mr. Scott’s complaint indicates that he was indicted on Sept ember 22, 1998 in federal court in Wilmington, North Carolina, and that he is curren tly incarcerated in federal prison. His complaint alleges severa l due process violations against the federal government, including an allegation that there is no record of his indictment, that the
warrant issued for his arrest wa s contrary to law, that the transcripts pertaining to his indictment have been altered, that the releva nt court has denied him access to the court’s transcripts, that the federal courts have refused to hear a habeas corpus motion and petition filed by Mr. Scott, and that his case has been generally mishandled.

The court must first determine whether it possesses jurisdiction over Mr. Scott’s complaint. Whether the court possesses jurisdiction to decide the merits of a case is a
threshold matter the court must decide. See PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc. , 484 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t , 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998)). Jurisdiction is a threshold ma tter because a case cannot proceed if a court

1 Mr. Scott applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on August 16, 2012. This application is GRANTED for the purpose of filing the complaint.lacks jurisdiction to hear it. See Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. , 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (“[W]hen a federal court concludes that it lack s subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the complaint in its entirety.” (citation omitted)).

When considering whether to dismiss a complaint for lack of jurisdiction, a court assumes that “the allegations stated in the complaint are . . . true .” Folden v. United
States , 379 F.3d 1344, 1354 (F ed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Shearin v. United States , 992 F.2d 1195, 1195-96 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). A pro se plaintiff, such as Mr. Scott, is entitled to a
liberal construction of th e pleadings. See, e.g. , Erickson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). However, a pro se plaintiff must still satisfy the court’s jurisdictional requirements. Bernard v. United States , 59 Fed. Cl. 497, 499 (2004) (“This latitude, however, does not relieve a pro se plaintiff from meeting jurisdictional requirements.”),
aff’d , 98 F. App’x 860 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

The burden is on Mr. Scott to establish that this court ha s jurisdiction to hear his complaint. See M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States , 609 F.3d 1323, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv. , 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). If Mr. Scott cannot estab lish jurisdiction, his complaint must be dismissed under Rule 12(h)(3) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims. This rule states that if the court at any tim e finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims before it, the court must dismiss the action. Id.

Turning to this case, Mr. Scott’s complaint describe s allegations against the federal government that amount to due process claims connected to his indictment and eventual conviction, as well as his habeas co rpus motion and petition. It is well-settled
law that the Court of Federal Claims does no t have jurisdiction over due process claims
under the Due Process Clauses of the Fift h or Fourteenth Ame ndments. James v.
Caldera , 159 F.3d 573, 581 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (holdi ng that this court lacks jurisdiction
over Fifth Amendment Due Pr ocess Clause claims) (citing LeBlanc v. United States , 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1 995) (holding that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Due
Process Clauses are not sufficien t bases for jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims)). Therefore, to the extent that Mr. Scott’ s allegations are based on the Due Process Clauses, his claims must be dismissed.

Furthermore, to the extent Mr. Scott reque sts that the court review decisions of other courts relating to the proceedings befo re those courts, to issue a writ of habeas corpus, or to review his convi ction or the denial of his ha beas motion or petition, this court does not have jurisdic tion over those claims. See Ledford v. United States , 297 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2 002) (stating that the Court of Federal Claims is not empowered to grant a writ of habeas corpus); Joshua v. United States , 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding that the Court of Fe deral Claims cannot review the decisions of other courts relating to proceedings before those courts); Dethlefs v. United States , 60 Fed. Cl. 810, 814 (2004) (holding that the Court of Federal Claims does not have

23 “authority to review and overturn convic tions entered by a court of competent jurisdiction.”).

Finally, to the extent that Mr. Scott’s clai ms could be construed to be based on the unjust conviction statutes codifi ed at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1495 and 25 13, Mr. Scott’s claims still must be dismissed. The unjust conviction stat utes are very limited in their reach and have several requirements with which Mr. Scott must strictly comply in order to recover any
relief. See Dethlefs , 60 Fed. Cl. at 814. Mr. Scott ha s failed to comply with the most fundamental requirement under the statutes because he has not produced a pardon or a certificate from a court setting aside his co nviction on the grounds of innocence and unjust conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2513(a), (b). Rathe r, Mr. Scott’s complaint indicates that he is currently incarcerat ed. Therefore, the unjust conv iction statutes cannot serve as
a basis for Mr. Scott’s claims.

In sum, Mr. Scott has failed to establish ju risdiction in this court. Therefore, Mr.
Scott’s claims must be dismissed under Rule 12(h)(3) of the Rules of the Court of Federal
Claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy B. Firestone
NANCY B. FIRESTONE Judge