## [''

i.-1.. 

# llnt\t@nitr! 5tuttr @ourt of

# fe[rrs[ 

# @luitul,rr'

No. l5-999C (Filed: January 6, 

### 2016)

*+ * {.* *,i<* *t

### *r!**r.:t*,********+r(*'*r('1.**{.**l. MELQUIADES 

### MENDIOLA,

# JR., *

* Pro Se 

### Plaintiff; RCFC 

### 12(b)(l); Federal

### Criminal Code; Federal

### Tort Claims 

### Act; 42 

### U.S.C. $ 1983; 

### Sixth Amendment: Eiehth Amendment 

# Plaintiff, t

THE TINITED STATES,



# Defendant. * *,t * * * * * r. :t :t* *!,t * :l * * * :1.*,l( * *,1. * * {.,1. *,1 * * rr* *, {.* Melquiades 

### Mendiola. Jr., Rosharon,

### TX, p1q se. 

### Mollie L. Finnan, 

### United States Department 

### of Justice, Washington, 

### DC, for defendant. 

### OPINION AND ORDER SWEENEY, Judge
On September 

### 9,2015,plaintiff in the above-captioned case, appcaring 

### p& se,

### filed a 

### complaint alleging assault and battery, 

### tortue, theft, and 

### embezzlement. That same day, 

### plainriff filed a 

### motion for leave to proceed 

### in forma pauperis 

### ("lFP"). On September 

### 30,2015, 

### plaintiff filed a 

### motion requesting 

### ajury trial, which was subsequently denied 

### by this court on

### october 

## l, 2015. On November 

### 6,2015, defendant

### filed a 

### motion to dismiss 

### plaintiff sclaims pursuantto 

### Rule 

### 12(b)(l) ofthe Rules

### ofthe United States Court 

### ofFederal Claims 

### ("RCFC")' For the reasons set

### forth below, thc court denies 

### plaintiff s IFP 

### application and grants defendant's 

### motion to dismiss. 

## I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is afederal inmate housed 

### in Rosharon, 

### Texas. In his 

### complaint, 

### plaintiff'claims that hewas abused and tortured 

### by agents 

### of the Federal Bureau 

### oflnvestigation 

### ("FBI") while hewas in state

### prison. Compl. 

## L According to 

### plaintiff. these agents

## \ erc attempting 

### to get him to

### tell them the 

### location

### ofan audio/video recording 

### ofa certain cocaine 

### purchase. 

### Id. Plaintiff also claims that hewas beaten 

### by 

### FBI agents

### while in the 

### hospital.

# id. According to 

### plaintiff, hewas treated this way becausethe agentswanted 

### him to "sign 1ime"

### for a

### criminal "number" upon

### which he had never been 

### indicted or arraigned. 

### Id. In addition, 

### plaintiff claims that the agents attempted

### to coerce his signature 

### in an

### effort to cover up 

### their embezzlement 

### of monies that 

### properly belonged

### to

### him. 

### Id. Finally, 

### plaintiff notes that he

### filed a

### civil rights 

### claim, under 

### JAN

## - 6 ?"'16 U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS42 

### U.S.C. g 

### i983, in the 

### United States 

### District Court 

### for the Southem 

### District of Texas butthat

the 

### claim had been 

### dismissed. Id. 

# II. LEGALSTANDARDS 

## A. Pro Se 

### Plaintiffs
The 

### united states

### court of Federal 

### claims 

### ("court of Federal

### claims") holds pleadings 

### ofa p5q se

### plaintiffto less stringent standards than pleadings 

### filed by litigants represented 

### by 

### couniel. Haines

### v. Kemer, 404 

### U.S. 519, 520 

### (1972). Courts have 

### "strained 

### ftheir] proper 

### role in adversary proceedings 

### to the 

### limit, searching

. . .

### to see 

### ifplaintiffhas a cause ofaction_ somewhere

### displayed.'; Ruderer 

### v. United 

### States,4l2F.2d1285,1292 (Ct. 

### Cl. 1969). Although

a 

### pro se

### plaintiff spleadings are held

### to a less stringent standard, such leniency 

### "with respect to mere

### formalities does not relieve the burden

### to meet

### jurisdictional requirements." Minehan v. 

### united states, 75 Fed.

## cl. 249,253 (2007); see also 

### Kellevv. Sec'y. U.S. 

### Dep't of Labpr, 812 

## p:a f:Zg f:SO (Fed. 

### Cir. 1987) 

### C'tAl court may 

### not.

. .take a 

### liberal 

### view of that

### jurisdictional requirement and set a

### different rulefor pro se 

### litigants 

### only."); Bemard 

### v. United Statqs, 59 Fed. 

### C|.4g7,499 (noting that p1q se

### plaintiffs are 

### not excused 

### from satisrying

### jurisdictional requirements), 

### aff O, gA F.

### App'x 860 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2004). As the Court 

### of Federal

### Claims stated 

### in Demes v. 

### United States, 52 Fed. 

### C\.365 (2002), 

### "[w]hile a court should be receptive to 

### plq se 

### pt"t.ttffr

# -d "*irt th"-, justice is 

### ill-served when a

### jurist crosses the 

### line

### from finder of fact

### to advocate." Id. at 369. 

## B. Rule 

## l2(bxl)

Pursuant to 

### Rule 

### 12(b)(l), aparty may move to dismiss a case 

### for lack

### ofsubject matter 

### jurisdiction. When considering such a 

### motion, the court accepts astrue 

### all undisputed factual allegations made by the 

### nonmoving party, and draws 

### all reasonable inferences 

### from those facts in

### tie nonmoving 

### putty't favor. Westlands Water 

### Dist. v. 

### United States' 109 Fed. 

### Cl. 177

## ' 190 

### (2013). Whetheithe court has

### jwisdiction to decide the merits 

### of a case is athreshold matter' 

### ige sieel Co.

### v. Citizens 

### for aAetter 

### Env't, 523 

### U.S. 83,94-95 (

### 1998). 

### "Withoutjurisdiction the 

# "*.t *"""t p....a ."t

## "ll in any cause. 

### Jurisdiction is power 

### to declare the law, and when 

### it

ceases

### to

### exiit, the

### only function remaining to the court is that 

### of announcing thefact and dismissing the 

### cause." Ex oarte 

### McCardle, 74 

### U.S. (7

### Wall.) 506, 514 

### (1868). The parties, 

### or the court 

### iua sponte, may challenge the existence 

### of subject matter 

### jurisdiction at

### anylime. Arbureh

### \r Y 

### & H Com., 546 U.S. 

### 500,506 

### (2006). The 

### plaintiff bearsthe burden 

### ofproving, 

## by.

# pr"p*d*** "f the evidence,that the court possesses subject matter

### jurisdiction Lujan v. 

### Defe;ders 

### of

### Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992); 

### McNutt v. Gen. 

### Motors Acceptance-Corp., 298 

## Us. 1?8,

## '8X'936} Brandt v. 

### United States, 

### Tl0 F.3d 

### |369, |373 (Fed' 

### Cir' 2013); Reynolds
u.

# A.-n't eir Eo."i E*"tt. 

## S.-., 846 

### F.2d 746,748 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1988). The 

### plaintiff cannot 

### rely 

### ..1"1y." 

## "tl"g"tr"* in the cornplaint, but must 

### bring forth relevant, adequate 

### proofto establish 

### jurisdiction. see 

### McNutt, 29S 

### a.S. at 189. 

### Ultimately, 

### if the court 

### finds that 

### it lacks subject matter

### jurisdiction, then 

### it must dismiss the 

### claim. Matthews v. 

### United States,72 Fed, Cl..274, 2',78

### (2006);see also 

### RCFC 12(h)(3) 

### ("Ifthe court determines at any time 

### that 

### it lacks subjectmatter 

### iurisdiction. the court must dismiss the 

### action.").

### C. The 

### Tucker 

### Act

The

### ability ofthe Court 

### ofFederal Claims to entertain suits against the 

### United States rs 

### limited: "The United States, as sovereign, is immune 

### from suit save as 

### it consents 

### to besued." 

### United States 

### v. Sherwood, 312 

### U.S. 584, 586 

### (1941).

### A waiver 

### of immunity "cannot be 

### implied but must be 

### unequivocally expressed." United States v. 

### King, 395 

### U.S. 

### 1,4 (1969). The

### Tucker Act, the 

### principal statute governing 

### thejurisdiction ofthis court, waives sovereign 

### immunityfor claims against the 

### United States 

### not sounding 

### in tort that arefounded upon the 

### Constitution, a federal statute or 

### regulation, or an express 

### or implied contract 

### with the 

### United States. 28 U.S.C. $ 1491 

### (2012). However, the

### TuckerAct is merely 

### ajurisdictional statute and "does not create any substantive 

### right enforceable against the 

### United States 

### for money 

### damages." United States v. Testan, 424 

### U.S. 392, 398 (

### 1976). Instead, the substantive 

### right must appear 

### in another source 

### of law, such as a 

### "money-mandating constitutional provision, statute or regulation that has been 

### violated, or an express 

### or implied contract 

### with the 

### United States." Loveladies 

### Harbor. Inc. v. 

### United States, 27 F.3d 1545, 1554 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1994) (en banc).



### D. Applications to Proceed 

### In Forma Pauperis
Pursuant 

### to 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1915, courts 

### of the 

### United States are permitted 

### towaive

### filing fees and security under certain 

### circumstances. See 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1915(aX1); see also Hayes v. 

### United States,71 Fed. 

### Cl. 366,366-67 (2006) 

### (concluding that 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1915(a)(1) appliesto both prisoners and nonprisoners 

### alike). Specifically, the statute provides as

### follows:



## (a)(l) Subject to subsection (b), any court 

### ofthe United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution 

### or defense 

### of any suit, action or proceeding, 

### civil or 

### criminal, or appeal therein, 

### without prepayment 

### of fees 

### or security therefor, 

### by a person 

### who submits an

### affidavit that includes a statement 

### of all assets such prisoner possesses that the person is unableto pay such fees 

### or give security 

### therefor. Such 

### affidavit shall state the nature 

### ofthe action, defense or appeal and

### affianl's belief that the person is entitled 

### to redress. 

### (2) A prisoner seeking 

### to bring a

### civil action or appeal 

### ajudgment in a

### civil action or proceeding 

### without prepayment 

### of fees 

### or security therefor, 

### in additionto

### filing the 

### affidavit filed under paragraph 

### (1), shall submit a

### certified copy 

### of the trust 

### fund account statement 

### (or institutional equivalent) 

### for the prisoner 

### for the 6-month period 

### immediately preceding the

### filing of the 

### complaint or notice 

### of appeal, obtained 

### from the appropriate 

### official ofeach prison at

### which the prisoner is 

### or was confined.
28 

### U.s.c. $ 191s(a)(1)-(2).

# II. DISCUSSION 

## A. Defendant's Rule 

### l2(b)(1) Motion
In its 

### Rule 

### l2(bXl ) 

### motion, defendant contends 

### plaintiff s

### "complaintfails to implicate any money-mandating 

### constitutional provision, Federal statute, Federal 

### regulation, or contract 

### with the Government that 

### would support this Court's 

### jurisdiction" and that instead, 

### "the complaint alleges 

### only tort and

### criminal claims, 

### which are not

### within this Court's 

### jurisdiction." Def.'s. 

### Mot. 

### 3-4. In response, 

### plaintiff contends that he is 

### not asserting claims 

### of "embezzlement, 

### theft, assault and or 

### battery," because he appreciates that the court lacks 

### jurisdiction over such 

### claims. Pl.'s 

### Opp'n

# l. Rather,

### plaintiff argues that he is seeking "damages 

### for torture and 

### brutally beating by the 

### F.B.I.," and that 

### "[i]t is a

### claim against a U.S. agency," 

### which 

### plaintiff characterizes as 

### "a constitutional violation tort 

### claim." Id. Despite 

### plaintiff sattempts

### to characterize his claims as

### falling within this 

### court's 

### jurisdiction, they do 

### not. First, to the extent

### plaintiff seeks 

### relief in this court based on alleged 

### criminal conduct, this 

### court lacks

### jurisdiction. Simply stated,this 

### "'court has no

### jurisdiction to adjudicate any claims whatsoever underthefederal 

### criminal code.

# "' Joshua v. 

### United States, I 7 F.3d 378, 379 (Fed. 

### Cir. I994) 

### (quoting the decision 

### of the Court 

### of Federal 

### Claims); accord Jones 

### v. United States,440 F.

### App'x 916,918 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2011) (unpublished decision) 

### ("As a threshold matter, 

### the [Court ofFederal Claims] conectly stated that 

### it has no

### jurisdiction over 

### criminal matters 

### generally."). Thus,

### with respect 

### to

### plaintiff sclaims 

### of assault, battery, torture, 

### theft, and embezzlement, this court lacks

### jurisdiction. See 

### United States

### v. Sumrall 

### , 690 F.3d 42, 44 

### (lst Cir. 2012) (discussing the crimes 

### of assault and battery); 

### McCulloueh v. 

### United States, 76 Fed. 

### Cl. 1,4 (2006), appeal dismissed, 236 F.

### App'x 615 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2007) (discussing the crime 

### oftorture); Kine v. Nazelrod, 43 

### F.3d 663,666 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1994) (discussing the crime 

### of theft); Reid v. 

### United States, 95 Fed. 

### Cl. 243, 249 (2010) 

### (holding, inter alia, that assault and embezzlement arecrimes outside 

### ofthis court's 

### jurisdiction).
Second, 

### to the extent

### plaintiff seeks 

### relief in this court based on alleged 

### tortious conduct, 

### this court again lacks

### jurisdiction. See Flowers 

### v. United States, 80 Fed. 

### Cl. 201, 213 (2008) 

### (notingthat this 

### "'court lacks 

### jurisdiction 

### ifthe essence 

### ofthe claim lies in

### tort"' (quoting Cottrell v. United States, 42 Fed. 

### Cl. 144, 149 (

### 1998)). The Federal

### Tort Claims

### Act 

### ("FTCA") grants the 

### United States 

### district courts exclusive

### jurisdiction to hear

### tort claims against the 

### United States and, therefore, the proper 

### forum 

### for federal

### tort claims is a 

### United States 

### district 

### court. See 28 

### U.S.C. $ 13a6(b)(1); seealso 

### Brown v. United States,74Fed. CL.546,549 (2006) 

### ("[T]he FTCA grants exclusive

### jurisdiction to the 

### United Statesfederal 

### district courts regarding 

### tort claims against the 

### United States 

### Govemment."). Thus,

### with respect 

### to

### plaintiff sclaims 

### of assault and battery in the context 

### oia civil suit, this court lacks

### jurisdiction. See Burman v. 

### United States, 75 Fed. 

### Cl. 727 

### ,729 (2007) (characterizing 

### piaintiffs claims 

### of assault and battery as

### torts

### falling outside 

### ofthis court's 

### jurisdiction). Third, to the extent 

### plaintiffhas made out a

### civil rights 

### claim under 42 

### U.S.C. $ 1983, there is no need 

### for this court to transfer his 

### claim since he has already 

### liled such a

### claim in the 

### United States 

### District Court for the Southern 

### District of Texas, 

### Brownsville 

### Division. See

### Mendiola v. Cameron 

### Ctv. Dist.

### Att'v's Office, 

### No. 1:13-cv-236 (S.D. 

### Tex.). Inthat case, 

### all

### of

plaintiff sclaims were dismissed and 

### plaintiff has appealed the dismissal to the 

### United States 

### Court ofAppeals 

### for the 

### Fifth 

### Circuit. See 

### Mendiola v. Cameron 

### Cty. Dist.

### Att'y's Office, No. I :

### l5-cv-40014 (5th 

### Cir.). Finally, to the extentthat

### plaintiff seeks 

### relief exclusively underthe 

### Sixth or 

### Eighth Amendmenls to the 

### United States 

### Constitution,r these claims also 

### fall short. As noted above, although the 

### Tucker

### Act provides 

### ior a

### waiver of sovereign 

### immunity ibr claims founded upon the 

### Constitution, the claims must also be based on money-mandating 

### provisions' See 28 U.S.C. $ 

### 1491. Since no money-mandating 

### provisions are

### found in either the 

### Sixth or 

### Eighth Amendments, this 

### court lacks

### jurisdiction. See Dupre v. 

### United States,229

### Ct.Cl.'706'706 (1981) (Sixth Amendment); 

### Alston-Bullock v. United 

### States,l22Fed. 

### Cl.38,44 (2015) 

### (Sixth Amendment); Seals-Bev 

### v. United States, 116 Fed. 

### Cl. 120, 122 (2014) 

### (Sixth Amendment); 

### Trafny v. 

### United States, 503 

### F.3d 1339, 1340 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2007) (per

### curiam) (Eighth Amendment); Hardin

### v. United States, 123 Fed. 

### CL.667,671(2015) (Eighth Amendment) 

## B. Plaintiff s 

### IFP 

### Motion
As noted above, 

### plaintifffiled, concurrent 

### with his 

### complaint, an IFP 

### application.2 

### In accordance 

### with the statute, 

### plaintiff submitted an

### affrdavit that 1) 

### listed

### all

### ofhis assets; and 2) averred that he is unable

### to pay the fees 

### or give the

### security. Furthermore, although 

### not stated 

### in his 

### affidavit, the nature

### of 

### plaintiff saction and his 

### belief of entitlement 

### to redress is stated 

### in his 

### complaint. See

### Compl.; see also 

### Fiebelkom v. 

### United States,77 

### Fed Cl. 59, 63 (2007) 

### ("Given the 

### linient standards 

### for p1q se

### plaintiffs

. . .the court finds that stating the nature

### of

### plaintiffs action 

### in a

### complaint, 

### filed simultaneously 

### with the

### Application, 

### fulfitls the requirements 

### of the


### ' The 

### Sixth Amendment provides as

### follows:

In 

### all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the 

### right to a speedy and 

### public 

### trial, by an 

### impartial

### jury of the State and 

### district wherein the 

### crime shall have been 

### committed,which district shall have been 

### previously ascertained 

### by law, and

### to be 

### informed 

### ofthe nature and cause 

### ofthe accusation; 

### to be confronted 

### with the witnesses against 

### him; to have 

### compulsory process 

### for obtaining witnesses 

### in his 

### favor, and

### to have the Assistance 

### of Counsel

### for his defence 

### [sic].
U.S. Const. amend.

## VI. The 

### Eighth Amendment provides as

### follows:

Excessive 

### bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed' nor 

### crucl and unusual punishmcnts 

### inflicted.
U.S. Const. amend. 

### VIIL 2 The application 

### plaintiff submitted, captioned 

### "Application to Proceed 

### In Forma Pauperis," is actually the

### form ernployed by thefederal 

### district courts 

### in Texas, rather than the

### form utilized by this court.statute."); Haves 

### v. United States,

## 7l Fed. 

### Cl.366,369 (2006) 

### (considering not 

### only the

statements 

### in 

### plaintiff s IFP 

### application but also those 

### in his 

### complaint when 

### determining whether he met the requirements 

### ofSection 1915(a)(1)). Thus, 

### plaintiffhas satisfied the requirements 

### of Section I 91

### s(aXl). Plaintiff has not, however, satisfied the requirements 

### of Section 

### l9l5(a)(2). Specifically, 

### plaintiff failed to submit a

### certified copy 

### ofhis prisoner 

### trustfund account statement 

### for the

### six months 

### prior to the

### filing of his 

### complaint. Therefore, the court must deny his IFP 

### application and require payment 

### in

## full. See Resendez

### v. United States, 96 Fed.

### Cl.283,286 (2010) (denying 

### prisoner's IFP 

### application for failure to submit a

### trustfund account statement); see also Johnson v. 

### United States,79 Fed. 

### CL.769,772 (2008) (denying 

### prisoner's IFP 

### motion for failure to submit an adequate 

### trustfund account statement in thatthe statement was 

### not certified and 

### did not cover the requisite 

### six-month period). 

# III. CONCLUSION
In sum, the court 

### GRANTS defendant's 

### motion to dismiss and 

### DISMISSES 

### plaintiff s 

### complaint for lack 

### ofjurisdiction pursuant 

### to RCFC I2(bX I

## ). In addition, the court 

### DENIES 

### plaintiff s IFP 

### application; 

### plaintiff shall pay the

### filing fee 

### in

## full. The 

### clerk is directed 

### to enter 

### judgment accordingly and shall not award costs. 

### IT IS SO 

### ORDERED,