In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 15-1202C 

(Filed: November 12, 2015) 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

ERIC M. RICHARDSON, 

 Pro Se Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE UNITED STATES, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The court is in receipt of the complaint filed on October 14, 2015 by pro se 

plaintiff Eric Richardson. Mr. Richardson, who is incarcerated in Schuylkill Federal 

Correctional Institution in Minersville, Pennsylvania, claims that the United States 

District Court for the District of Maryland (“the district court”) and the United States 

Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland (“the U.S. Attorney’s Office”) violated his 

civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986 based on an “unlawful restraint of 

liberty.” Compl. 2.1

 Mr. Richardson asserts that this court has jurisdiction to hear his 

case under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, and the Administrative Procedure Act

(“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706.2

Plaintiffs have the burden of establishing the court’s subject matter jurisdiction by 

a preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., Estes Express Lines v. United States, 739 

1

 Because the only proper defendant for any matter before this court is the United States, the 

court has construed the claims against the district court and the U.S. Attorney’s Office as claims 

against the United States (“the government”). 

2 The court is also in receipt of letters from Mr. Richardson concerning the nature of his suit. 

“Nature of suit” codes are used for statistical purposes and do not affect consideration of the 

case.

ORIGINAL FILED

NOV 12 2015

U.S. COURT OF 

FEDERAL CLAIMS
F.3d 689, 692 (Fed. Cir.2014) (citing Reynolds v' Army & Air Force Exch. Serv', 846

F.2d746,748 (Fed. Cir. 19S8)). Although pro se plaintiffs are held to less stringent

pleading standards, they must still demonstrate that the court has jurisdiction to hear their

claim. See Matthews v. United States, 750 F.3d 1320,1322 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citation

omitted); Mora v. United States, I I 8 Fed. Cl. 713,7 15 (2014) (citation omitted). Under

Rule 12(h)(3) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims, the court must dismiss an

action "[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction."

The court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Richardson's complaint for three

reasons. First, this court "lacks jurisdiction to consider claims which amount to collateral

attacks on criminal convictions." Judd v. United States, No. l5-586C, 2015 WL

6684540, at * I (Fed. Cl. Oct. 30, 2015) (quoting Beadles v. United States, I l5 Fed' Cl.

242,245 (2014). This court also "has no jurisdiction to review the merits of a decision

rendered by a federal district court." Shinnecock Indian Nation v. United States, 782

F.3d 1345, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citations omitted). Mr. Richardson's claims would

require this court to review the actions of the district court and consider the validity of his

criminal conviction.

Second, it is well-settled that this court lacks jurisdiction over civil rights actions,

including Mr. Richardson's claims arising under 42 U.S.C. $$ 1985 and 1986. See

Colbertv. United States, No.20l4-5029,2015 WL 2343578, at *1 n.l (Fed. Cir. May 18,

2015); see also Ilaw v. United States, 121 Fed. Cl. 408, 426 (2015).

Finally, the Tucker Act grants this court jurisdiction over claims against the

govemment that are founded on the Constitution, laws, treaties, or contracts of the United

States. 28 U.S.C. $ 1a9l(a)(l). However, the Tucker Act does not create substantive

rights; it only waives sovereign immunity for claims premised on other sources of law,

such as statutes or contracts, that "can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by

the Federal Govemment for the damages sustained." Jan's Helicopter Serv.. Inc. v. FAA,

525 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Mitchell , 463 U .5. 206,

216- 17 (1983). The APA is not a money-mandating statute, see. e.s., Wopsock v.

Natchees, 454 F.3d 1327,1333 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing 5 U.S.C. $ 702), and does not

authorize review of federal court decisions. See 5 U.S.C. $ 701(bX1XB) (excluding

federal courts from the APA's definition of "agency"); Ealy v. United States, 120 Fed.

Cl. 801, 805 (2015). In sum, the APA cannot provide a basis for this court to hear Mr.

Richardson's claims.

Therefore, because this court lacks jurisdiction, Mr. Richardson's complaint is

DISMISSED.3 The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

3 Along with the complaint, Mr. Richardson hled a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

Mr. Richardson's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED for the limited purpose of

filing the complaint. However, Mr. Richardson may still be required to pay the full amount of
IT IS SO ORDERED.

the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. $ 1915(b). In addition, the court finds that Mr. Richardson's

complaint was frivolous, making this a "stdke" under 28 U.S.C. $ 1915(g).

Judge