# Jfn tbe Wntteb ~tates Qtourt ofjf 

# eberal Qtlatms

SAMANTHARAJAPAKSE, Plaintiff,



### v. THE UNITED STATES, No. 19-317C (Filed: September 16, 2019) NOT FORPUBLICATION

Pro Se Plaintiff; Motion for Reconsideration Deemed a Motion to Amend; Lack ofSubjectMatter Jurisdiction.

Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) --------------) ORDER Afterthis court dismissedplaintiffs complaint for want ofsubjectmatter jurisdiction on March 12, 2019, ECF No. 5 (order), on April 1, 2019, plaintifffiled a "Motion for Reconsideration Notice ofFiling a Claim under the Federal Tort Act," see ECF No. 8. Although plaintiffs motion requests that the courtreconsider its dismissal of her suit, there is no argument therein which suggests thatthe court'sjurisdictional analysis ofthe original complaint was incorrect. Instead, plaintiffs motion submits a proposed amended complaint, which is generally alleged to "correct [the]jurisdiction [of] her complaint," ECF No. 8 at 1, and now states the plaintiffbrings a claimunder one of theprocedural provisions ofthe Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2674 (2012) (FTCA), see id. at 2 ("Samantha Rajapakse presents a claim under [28 U.S.C. § 2674] of the Federal Tort Act againstthe United States."). The court therefore DEEMS plaintiffs motion for reconsideration to be a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. 1

Even ifplaintiffs motion were considered under the standard ofreview for a motion for reconsideration, it wouldbe denied becauseMs. Rajapakse has not shown that there has been an intervening change in controlling law, that shehas discovered previously unavailable evidence, orthat a manifest injustice could be prevented ifthe court reinstated her suit. E,g,, Keeton Corr., Inc. v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 251,253 (2004) (citation omitted).The court cannot grant a plaintiffleave to file an amended complaint, however, if the proposed amendment is futile. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Here, there is nojurisdiction for the claims in plaintiffsproposed amended complaint. Thus, amendment ofthe complaint is futile and plaintiffs motion must be denied. Plaintiffs motion is replete with citations to legal authority, but none ofthe sources oflaw cited by plaintiffcan support this court'sjurisdiction overMs. Rajapakse's claims.2 The amended complaintproffered by plaintiffis, by its nature, a set offactual allegations suggesting that a magistratejudge, and, subsequently, other federal officials, damaged plaintiffthrough tortious or criminal acts. See, e.g., Katz v. Cisneros, 16 F.3d 1204, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ("Regardless ofthe characterization ofthe case ascribed by [the plaintiff] in its complaint, we look to the true nature ofthe action in determining the existence or not of jurisdiction." (citing Livingston v. Derwinski, 959 F.2d 224,225 (Fed. Cir. 1992))). As the court explained in its previous order dismissing plaintiffs case, this court neither reviews the actions offederaljudges nor enforces criminal laws. ECF No. 5 at 2-3. To the extent that plaintiffs amended complaint echoes such allegations in the original complaint, these are claims over which this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Id. Turning to plaintiffsFTCA claim, ECF No. 8 at 1-2, 12, it is well-settled thattort claims, in general, cannotbebrought in this court, and that FTCA claims, in particular, can only be brought in a federal district court. )1&, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(l) (2012); 28 U.S.C. 1491(a)(l) (2012). As for civil rights claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012), ECF No. 8 at 4-5, this court has nojurisdiction over such claims. E.g., Hover v. United States, 113 Fed. Cl. 295, 296 (2013) (citations omitted), affd, 566 F. App'x 918 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Finally, as to the violation ofthe Fifth Amendmentto the United States Constitutionthat is alleged in the complaint, ECF No. 8 at 7, a claim for a taking ofMs. Rajapakse's property by the actions ofa magistratejudge is not a claimthat can be consideredby this court. E.g., Campbell v. United States, 932 F.3d 1331, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citations omitted); Allustiarte v. United States, 256 F.3d 1349, 1351-52 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Because none ofthe claims asserted by plaintiffin the proposed amended complaint are within this court'sjurisdiction, amendment ofthe original complaint, ECF No. 1, is futile. Accordingly, plaintiffsmotion for reconsideration, DEEMED as a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, ECF No. 8, is DENIED. The clerk's office is directed to RETURN any further submissions from plaintiffin this matter that are not in accordance with this court's rules to plaintiff, UNFILED.

2 The court has considered the entirety ofplaintiffsmotion and has found no claim within thejurisdiction ofthis court. Only the legal citations that have been addressed in more than a cursory fashion in the proposed amended complaint are addressed here.

2IT IS SO ORDERED.

ATRICIAE. CAMPB Judge

3