# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 15-1202C (Filed: November 12, 2015) NOT FOR PUBLICATION

ERIC M. RICHARDSON,

Pro SePlaintif f,

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 AdministrativeProcedure 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 CLAIMSF.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 afederal 

### 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 arefounded onthe 

### 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.

3Along 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 wasfrivolous, making this a "stdke" under 28 U.S.C. $ 1915(g). Judge