Jtr



# U 5$\.1 

### *t 

## - n r. 

## i E

### ir'l



### No. 15-776C 

### Filed January 

### 12,2016 FOR 

### PUBLICATION 

### JAN 

# I 2 2016 U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS 

### Pro Se; 

### Rule 12(bX1), Subject-Matter 

### Jurisdiction; Rule 12(b)(6), Failure 

### to State a

### Claim; 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1915; 28 

### U.s.c. $ 1491(a); 28 

### U.s.c. $ 

### 13a60)(1); In Forma Pauperis. Defendant.



### Melvin Johnson, Texarkana, 

### TX, 

### plaintiffpro se. 

### Jimmy S. 

### McBirney,

### Trial Attomey; Brian 

### A. Mizoguchi, Assistant 

### Director; Robert E. 

### Kirschman, 

### Director; Benjamin 

## C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant 

### Attomey General, 

### Commercial 

### Litigation Branch, 

### Civil Division, United States Depanment 

### of Justice, Washington, 

### DC, for defendant. 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 

### AI\D ORDER GRIGGSBY. Judge 

# I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff pro se, 

### Melvin Johnson, brought this action challenging the 

### United States Bureau 

### ofPrisons' decision notto 

### perform surgery to remove 

### fatty tissue 

### from his stomach and seeking $7,000,000 

### in monetary damages 

### from the 

### United States. The govemment has moved to dismiss the 

### complaint for lack 

### of subject-matter

### jurisdiction, pursuant

### to Rule 12(b)(1) 

### of the Rules 

### ofthe 

### United States Court 

### of Federal

### Claims 

### ("RCFC"), or 

### in the alternative, 

### for failure to state a

### claim upon

### which relief can be granted, pursuant

### to RCFC 

### l2(bX6). Plaintiff has also moved to proceed in 

### this maller in

### forma pauperis and moved 

### for court-appointed 

### counsel. For the reasons set

### forth below,the Court 

### GRANTS defendant's 

### motion to dismiss, 

### GRANTS 

### plaintiff s

### motion to proceed in

### forma pauperrs and 

### DENIES 

### plaintiff s

### motion to appoint counsel. 

# llrtbt @nfteU

# 9ltafti @ourt 

# otfeUersl 

# [,lsims FILED

MELVINJOHNSON,

### Plaintifl

THE 

### UNITED STATES,

# II. FACTUALAND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND'



# A. Factual Background Plaintiff 

### pro se, 

### Melvin Johnson, is an inmate atthe Federal

### Correctional Institution 

### in Texarkana, 

### Texas. Def. 

### Mot. at

### 2. Inthis case, 

### plaintiff challenges a decision bythe 

### United States Bureau 

### ofPrisons 

### ("BoP") not to 

### perform surgery

### to remove 

### fatty tissue 

### from his stomach. See 

### generally 

### Compl. As 

### relief, 

### plaintiff seeks

### to recover $7,000,000 

### from the 

### United States. 

### Compl. at 1.


### Inthe 

### complaint, 

### plaintiff alleges that, on 

### May 16,2014, he 

### "was scheduled to go to Delta 

### Medical Center

### for treatment 

### of Lapoma's [sic][that are located] on the 

### right side 

### of [his] stomach." Id.

## at2. Plaintiff further alleges that, a BoP physician, 

### Dr. Edna Prince, 

### told him that hewas going to the hospital to 

### "be evaluated

### for surgery

### to remove the

### fatty 

### tissue." 1d. 

### Plaintiff claims, however, that 

### "the surgery never happened" andthatthe

### fafty tissue 

### in his stomach is 

### "getting larger each day

# )' Id. As a result, 

### plaintiffalso claims that he is experiencing increasing 

### pain. Id.
In addition, 

### plaintiffhas anached to the 

### complaint a copy 

### of the personal 

### injury administrative tort claim, dated June 

### 3,2014, that he 

### previously submitted tothe 

### BoP. Id. 

### atEx. 

# l. Plaintiffhas also attached the 

### BoP's July

### 9,20l4letter acknowledging receipt 

### of this 

### claim. 1d. In

### plaintiff s

### administrative claim, 

### plaintiff seeks $7,000,000 

### in damages 

### for personal 

### injury from the 

### BoP. 

## Id. Plaintiff has not 

### provided the Court 

### with any 

### information about the status

### of his 

### administrative 

### claim. Id. 

# B, ProceduralBackground Plaintiff filed the 

### complaint in this matter 

### on July

### 23,2015. See 

### generally 

### Compl. On that same date, 

### plaintiffalso filed a

### motion to proceed 

### informa pauperls, alleging that he lacks the

### financial means 

### to pay the 

### Court's 

### filing fee. See 

### generally Pl. 

### Mot.to Proceed 

### In Formq 

### Pauperis. On 

### August 18,2015, defendant 

### hled a 

### motion to dismiss 

### plaintiff s

### complaint for lack

I The facts recited in this Memorandum Opinion and Order are taken from plaintifPs complaint ("Compl. at

## _"); defendant's motion to dismiss ("Def. Mot. at

## _"); and 

### plaintiff s response to defendant's motion to dismiss ("P1. Resp. at

## _").

### of subject-matter

### jurisdiction, prrsuant to RCFC 

### l2(bx1), or in the 

### altemative, for failure to state

a

### claim, pursuant

### to RCFC 12(bX6). See 

### generally Def. 

### Mot.

On 

### August 31,2015, 

### plaintiff filed a 

### motion requesting thatthe Court appoint 

### him counsel. See 

### generally Pl. 

### Mot. On September 

### 17,2015, the govemment responded to 

### plaintiffs motion to appoint counsel stating that the government takes no 

### position on

### plaintiff s 

### motion. See 

### generally Def

. Resp.

### to Pl. 

### Mot. Plaintiff did not

### file a

### timely response to defendant's 

### motion to dismiss. And so,on September 

### 28,2015, the Court issued an order 

### instructing 

### plaintiffto show cause on or before October 

### 13,2015, as

### towhy this action should not be dismissed 

### for failure to prosecute pursuant

### to RCFC 

### 41(b). See 

### generally Order

### to Show Cause. On 

### October 15, 2015, 

### plaintiff responded 

### tothe 

### Court's Order 

### to Show Cause and also 

### filed a response

### tothe 

### govemment's motion to dismiss. See

### generallyPl. Resp.

### to Order to Show Cause; Pl. 

### Resp. On December 

### 1,2015, 

### plaintifffiled medical records

### with the

### Court. ,See 

### generally Pl. 

### Records. The govemment has 

### not

### filed a 

### reply brief 

### in support 

### of its 

### motion to dismiss. 

## III. STANDARDS OF 

### REVIEW 

# A. Pra .Se

### Litigants Plaintiffis proceeding 

### in this matler 

### pro se,

### without the benefit 

### ofcounsel. And so, the 

### Court applies the pleadings requirements 

### leniently. Beriont v. GTE Labs,, 

### lnc.,535 F.

### App'x 919,925-6 n.2 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2013) 

### (citing McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Co4p., 501 

### F.3d 1354, 1356 (Fed. 

### Cir. 

### 2007)). When determining whether a

### complaint 

### filed by

### apro se

### plaintiffis sufficient to survive a 

### motion to dismiss, this Court affords more leeway underthe rules

### topro se 

### plaintiffs than 

### plaintiffs who are represented 

### by counsel. See Haines v. 

### Kerner, 404 

### U.S. 5 19, 520 

### (1972) (holding that 

### pro se complaints, 

### "however 

### inartfully pleaded," are held 

### to "less stringent standards than 

### formal pleadings drafted 

### by lawyers"); Matthews 

### v. United States,750 

### F.3d 1320, 

### 1322(Fed.

### Cir.20l4). But, there 

### "is no 

### duty on the part

### ofthe trial court 

### to create a

### claim which [the

### plaintiffl has not spelled out 

### in his 

### pleadings." Lengen 

### v. United 

### States,100 Fed. 

### CI.317, 328 (2011) (brackets 

### existing; citations 

### omitted). Inthis regard 

### while "a 

### pro se

### plaintiff is held 

### to a less stringent standard thanthat

### ofa plaintiff represented 

### by an 

### attomey,

. . . the

### pro se 

### plaintiff, nevertheless, bears the burden 

### of establishing the Court's 

### jurisdiction by apreponderance 

### ofthe evidence." Riles 

### v. United States,93 Fed. 

### Cl. 163, 165 (2010) 

### (citing

Taylor v. United 

### States,303 F.3d 1357 

### , 1359 (Fed. 

### Cir.

### 2002). And so, rhis Court may excuse ambiguities, but not defects, in the

### complaint. See

### Colbert v. United States, 

### No.20l4-5029, 2015 

### WL 2343578, at 

### *1 (Fed. 

### Cir. 

### May 18, 2015); seealso Demes 

### v. United 

### States,52 Fed. 

### Cl. 365, 368 

### (2002) 

### ("[T]he leniency afforded

### pro se 

### litigants 

### with respect 

### to mere 

### formalities does 

### not relieve them 

### ofjurisdictional requirements."). 

# B. RCFC 12(bX1) 

### It is

### well established that this 

### Court's subject-matter

### jurisdiction must be established before 

### it addresses the merits 

### of a

### claim. Plains Comm. Bank v. Long 

### Family Land 

### & Cattle Co., 554 U.S. 

### 316,324 (2008) (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens

### for a Better 

### Env't,523 U.S. 83, 88-89 (1998) (Subject-matter 

### jurisdiction is "a threshold question that must be resolved

. .

## . before proceeding 

### to the 

### merits.")). When considering whether 

### to dismiss an action 

### for lack 

### of subjectmatter

### jurisdiction, the Court 

### "must assume 

### all factual allegations 

### to betrue and draw 

### all reasonable inferences in the 

### plaintifPs 

### favor." Redondo 

### v. United 

### States,542 F.

### App'x908,910 (Fed.Cir.2013)(citingHenkev.UnitedStates,60F.3d795,797(Fed.Cir. 1995)). However, 

### "plaintiff bears the burden 

### of establishing subject matter

### jurisdiction by a preponderance 

### of the 

### evidence." See, e.g., Green

### v. United Stqtes,586 F.

### App'x 586, 587 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2014); seealso 

### McNuu v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. of 

### Indiana,298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936) 

### (notingthatthe burden

### ofproving that the matter is 

### properly before the 

### Court should rest on the 

### party seeking the Court's 

### jurisdiction). 

### If subject-matter

### jurisdiction is found 

### to be lacking, the Court must dismiss the

### action. RCFC 12(bX1).


### Inthis regard,the 

### United States Court 

### of Federal

### Claims is a court 

### of limited

### jurisdiction and "possess[es] 

### only that power authorized 

### by Constitution and statute

. . .

## ." Kokkonen v. 

### Guardian Life Ins. Co. 

### of

### Am.,5l 

### I U.S. 375,377 

### (1994). In particular, theTucker 

### Act grants the Court

### jurisdiction over: 

### [A]ny claim against the 

### United States founded either upon the 

### Constitution, or any 

### Act ofCongress or any regulation 

### ofan executive department, 

### of upon any express 

## or implied contract

### with the United States, 

## or for liquidated 

## or unliquidated damages 

### in cases 

### not sounding 

### in tort. 28

### u.s.c. $ 

### 1ae1(a)(l) (2011)The Tucker 

### Act, however, is "a

### jurisdictional statute; 

### it does not create any substantive



### right enforceable against the 

### United States 

### for money damages

. . . . 

### [T]he Act merely confers 

### jurisdiction upon [the 

### United States Court 

### ofFederal Claims] whenever the substantive 

### right 

### exists." United Stdtes v. Testan, 424 

### U.5.392,398 (1976). And so, to pursue asubstantive 

### right against the 

### United States under the Tucker 

### Act, a

### plaintiff must 

### identify and plead a moneymandating 

### constitutional provision, statute or regulation, or an express 

### or implied confiact 

### with the 

### United States. 

### Cabral v. United States,317 F.

### App'x 979,981 (Fed. 

### Cir.2008).
In addition, 

### this Court does not possess 

### jurisdiction to consider 

### tort 

### claims. 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1491(a)(1); 12 U.S.C. 

### $ 1346(bX1) 

### (2006). Pursuant 

### to 28 

### U.S.C. $ 

### 1346(bXl), United States 

### District Courts: 

### [S]hall have exclusive 

### jurisdiction 

### of

### civil actions 

### on claims against 

### the United States, for money damages, accruing on and after January I

### , 1945,

### for injury or loss 

### of property, or personal 

### injury or death caused 

### by the negligent or

### wrongful act or omission 

### of any employee 

### ofthe Govemment 

### while acting 

### within the scope 

### of his 

### office 

### or employment, under circumstances where 

### the 

### United States, 

## if a private person, 

### would be 

### liableto the claimant 

### in accordance 

### with the 

### law 

### of the place wherethe act or omission occurred. 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1346(bX1). 

# c. RCFC 12(bX6) Under 

### Rule 12(bX6) 

### of the Rules 

### ofthe 

### United States Court 

### of Federal Claims, a defendant may move 

### for dismissal 

### ofthe complaint 

### if plaintiff "fail[s] to state a

### claim upon 

### which relief can be

### granted." RCFC 

### 12(bX6). To survive a

### motion to dismiss under RCFC 

### l2(bX6), "a 

### complaint must contain 

### sufficient factual matter, accepted astrue, 

### to 'state a

### claimto relief that is plausible on its

### face."' Ashqoft v. 

### Iqbal,556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting 

### Beil 

### Atl. Corp. v. 

### Twombly,550 U.S. 544,570 

### (2007)). 

### "A claim has

### facial 

### plausibility when the 

### plaintiffpleads factual content that

### allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is 

### liable for the misconduct 

### alleged." Id. 

### (citing Twombly,ssO U.S. at

### 556). Pleadings must establish 

### "more than an unadomed, 

### the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." 1d 

### (citingTwombly, 550 U.S. at

### 555). 

### "A pleading that 

### offers'labels and 

### conclusions' or 

### 'a formulaic recitation 

### ofthe elements 

### ofa cause 

### of action

### will not

### do."' 1d. 

### (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at

### 555). And 

### so,"apro se

### plaintiff still must establish the requisite elements 

### ofhis

### claim." Sahagun-Pelayo 

### v. United 

### States,No. 2014-5126, 2015

### WL 1004362, at 

### *2, (Fed. 

### Cir.

Mar. 

### 9,2015) (intemal citations 

### omitted). 

# D. 28 

### U.S.C. S 191s 

### Title 28, 

### United States Code, section 1915 govems thetreatment 

### ofplaintiffs proceedings 

### informa pauperfs. Section 1915(a) provides in pertinent part that:



### [The Court] may authorize 

### the commencement, prosecution or defense 

### ofany suit, action or proceeding, 

### civil or 

### criminal, or appeal therein, 

### without prepayment 

### of fees or security therefor, 

### by aperson 

### who submits an

### affidavit that includes a statement 

### ofall assets such prisoner possesses that the person is unableto pay such fees or 

### give security 

### therefor. Such 

### affidavit shall state the nature

### ofthe action, delense 

### or appeal and 

### affiant's 

### belief thatthe person 

### is entitled to redress. 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1915(a)(1). 

### With respect 

### to cases

### filed by prisoners, section 1915 

### further provides that: 

### 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

### affidavitfiled under paragraph (1), shall submit a

### certified copy 

### of thetrust 

### 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 

## of each 

### prison at 

### which the prisoner is or was confined. 28 

### U.S.C.

### $ 

### l9l5(a)(2). Prisoners are not, however, relieved 

### ofthe obligation to pay the 

### Court's 

### filing fee. Section 191 5 also requiresthat 

### "if a prisoner brings a

### civil action or

### files an appeal 

### in forma pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the

### full amount

### ofafiling fee.

. . .

### After payment 

### of the 

### initial partial

### filing fee, the prisoner shail be required 

### to make 

### monthly payments 

### of20 percent

### ofthe preceding 

### month's income credited 

### to the 

### prisoner's 

### account." 28 

### U.S.C. $ 

### le15(bX1) and (b)(2).
Section 1915(e) 

### further allows the Court to request an attorney 

### to represent any person unable

### to afford counsel. 28 

### U.S.C. g 

### 1915(e)(1). In addition, this 

### provision also sets

### forth the circumstances under 

### which the Court may dismiss a case proceeding in

### forma 

### pauperis. Inthis regard, section 1915(e)(2) requires that:

### [T]he court shall dismiss the case at any 

### time 

### if the 

### court determines

## that- (A) the allegation 

### of poverty is untrue; 

### or (B) the action or

### appeal- (i) is

### frivolous or 

### malicious; 

### (ii) fails to state a

### claim on

### which relief may be

### ganted; or 

### (iii) seeks monetary 

### relief against a defendant 

### who is immune 

### from such 

### relief. 

### 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 1915(e). 

### And so, 

### the Court must dismiss a complaint 

## if the complaint is deemed 

### to be

### frivolous, or 

### malicious, faiisto state a

### claim, or seeks monetary 

### relief against

a defendantthat is immune 

### from such 

### relief. 1d. 

### IV. DISCUSSION 

# A. The

### Court Does 

### Not Possess 

### Jurisdiction To Consider 

### Plaintif?s Claim The government has moved 

### to dismiss 

### plaintiff s

### complaint for lack 

### of subject-matter 

### jurisdiction upon

### two grounds. First, the govemment argues thatthe Court does not possess 

### jurisdiction to consider 

### plaintiff s

### claim pursuant

### to 28 

### U.S.C. $ 

### 1346(bXl), because 

### plaintiff alleges a negligent or

### wrongful act or omission 

### of the part 

### of a BoP employee acting 

### within the scope 

### of her 

### employment. Def. 

### Mot. at

### 5. Second, the government also argues that the Court is 

### without

### jurisdiction to consider 

### plaintiff s

### claim under theTucker 

### Act, because his 

### claim sounds 

### in

### tort. Id. (citing 28 

### U.S.C. $

## l49l(a). For the reasons discussed 

### below,the Court agrees that 

### it does not possess

### jurisdiction to consider 

### plaintiff s

### claim. And so, the Court must dismiss the 

### complaint for lack 

### of subject-matter

### jurisdiction. RCFC 

### 12(bxl).



# l. The

### Court Does 

### Not Possess 

### Jurisdiction To Consider 

### Plaintiff s 

### Claim Against BoP Employees As an 

### initial matter, the Court does not possess 

### jurisdiction to consider 

### plaintiff s

### claim challenging the alleged negligent actions 

### of Dr. 

### Prince. 

### It is

### well establishedthat the 

### United States 

### District Courts have exclusive

### jurisdiction to consider claims regarding a 

### "negligent or wrongful act or omission 

### of any employee 

### of the Govemment 

### while acting 

### within the scope

### of his 

### office or 

### employment." 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1346(bX1).

### Inthis case, 

### plaintiff alleges that 

### Dr. Prince-a BoP 

### employee-told him that he

### would be

evaluated

### for surgery

### to remove 

### fatty tissue, butthat 

### "[t]he surgery never happened and the 

### fatty tissue is getting larger eachday 

### it remains 

### in [his] 

### stomach." Compl. at

### 2. It appearsthat 

### plaintiffis alleging that 

### Dr. Prince engaged 

### in negligent or

### wrongful acts 

### by deciding not

### to go 

### forward 

### with this snrgery. See 

### generally Compl.


### It is

### well established that such claims, 

### involving a 

### "negligent or

### wrongful act 

### or omission" of a BoP employee acting 

### within the scope

### of her employment, must be brought 

### in a 

### district court, rather than in 

### this 

### Court. 28 

### U.S,C. $ 

### 1346(b)(1). Given this, section 1346 deprives this Court 

### ofjurisdiction to consider 

### plaintiff s

### claim. And so, the Court must dismiss the

### complaint. RCFC 

### l2(bX1).



# 2. Plaintiff s

### Tort Claim Is Also

### Jurisdictionally Barred To the extent that

### plaintiff is asserting a

### tort claim regarding the alleged actions

### ofDr. Prince or the BoP, the Court 

### similarly does not possess 

### jurisdiction to consider such a

### claim. 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1a91(a)(1). Inthis regard, the 

### Tucker

### Act explicitly places 

### tort claims beyond the 

### jurisdiction 

### ofthis Court. Id. ("The United States Court 

### ofFederal Claims shall have

### jurisdiction to render

### judgment upon any 

### claim against the 

### United States

. . .

### not sounding 

### in

### tort."); Hernandez 

### v. United 

### States,96 Fed. 

### Cl. 195,204 (2010) 

### ('the Tucker

### Act expressly excludes 

### tort claims, 

### including those 

### committed by federal 

### officials, from the

### jurisdiction of the 

### United States Court 

### ofFederal Claims" (citing Keene 

### Corp.v. United 

### States,508 

### U.S.200,2la (1993))). As discussed above, 

### it appearsthat 

### plaintiffis alleging negligence or

### wrongful acts on the part 

### of Dr. Prince or the 

### BoP. Because such claims sound 

### in tort, the Court may not consider

### plaintiffs claim.
In addition, 

### it appearsthat

### plaintiff is pursuing an

### administrative remedy 

### to his

### tort claim pursuant tothe Federal

### Tort Claims 

### Act. See 

### Compl. at 

### Ex. 

## L Inthis regard, 

### plaintiffhas attached 

### to the 

### complaint a copy 

### ofhis personal 

### injury administrative tort claim, dated 

### June3,2014. 1d. As discussed above, a

### district court, rather than 

### this Court, is the appropriate 

### judicial forum to pursue 

### plaintiff s

### tort 

### claim. 28 

### U.S.C. g l3a6@)(1); 28 

### U.S.C. g 

### lagl(a); Mendiola v. United 

### States,No. 15-999,2016 

### WL 81698, at 

### *3 (Fed. 

### Cl. Jan. 6, 2016) 

### (holding thatthe Federal

### Tort ClaimsAct grants 

### United States 

### district courts exclusive

### jurisdiction over

### tort claims against the 

### United States); 

### Trevifiov. United States, 1 13 Fed. 

### Cl.204,209 (2013)



### ("This court lacks

### jurisdiction over claims brought underthe 

### FTCA; instead, such claims must be brought in 

### United States 

### district 

### court."). And so,dismissal 

### of the 

### complaint is wananted. 

### RCFC 

### r2(bxl). 

# B. Plaintiff Fails To State 

### A Claim Upon 

### Which Relief Can Be 

### Granted Dismissal 

### of the 

### complaint is also warranted becausethe 

### complaint failsto state a

### claim upon

### which relief may be 

### granted. RCFC 

### 12(bX6). In

### this regard, 

### plaintiffdoes not allege any facts in the 

### complaint that 

### would entitle 

### him to recover a money damages 

### from the govemment. See 

### generally 

### Compl. Infact, 

### plaintiffdoes not allege any 

### wrongdoing on the part 

### of the govemment 

### in the 

### complaint. 1d. Rather,

### plaintiff simply alleges that hewas

### told that he

### would be evaluated 

### for stomach surgery, andthereafter, the BoP decided 

### notto go

### forward 

### with the 

### stxgery. 

### Id. at

### 2. Plaintiff does not allege in the 

### complaint that this decision was incorrect, 

### or that the BoP, or 

### Dr. Prince, acted 

### negligently. 

## Id. And so, 

### plaintiff s

### complaint does not state a plausible legal 

### claim 

### entitling him to 

### relief from this 

### Court. Because the 

### complaint is devoid 

### of any factsthatwarrant granting 

### plaintiffrelief, the Court must also dismiss the 

### complaint

### for failure to state a

### claim upon

### which relief may be

### granted. RCFC 12(b)(6); Twombly,550 U.S. at 570 

### (plaintiff must plead "enough facts 

### to state a

### claim to 

### reliefthat is plausible on its face").2 

# C. Plaintiff s

### Motion For LeaveTo Proceed 

### .Iz Forma Pauperis Satisfies 

### The 

### Statutory Requirement In addition, 

### plaintiffhas filed a 

### motion

### to proceed 

### informa pauperis, in which he requests a

### waiver 

### ofthe Court's 

### filing fee. See 

### generally Pl. 

### Mot. to Proceed 

### In Forma Pauperis. 

### This Court may authorize commencement 

### of a 

### lawsuit without prepayment 

### of feeswhen aperson submits an

### affidavit including a statement 

### ofall assets, adeclaration that he or she is unable 

### to pay the fees, and a statement 

### ofthe nature 

### ofthe action and a

### beliefthat he

### or she is entitled 

### to redress. See 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1915(a); seealso 28 

### U.S.C. $

### 2503(d). In caseswhere the 

### plaintiff is a prisoner, as here,the

### plaintiff must also submit "a 

### certified copy 

### of [his] trust 

### fund account

2

### Title 28, section 1915, provides an

### additional ground 

### for dismissal 

### of

### plaintiff s

### complaint 

### for failure to state a

### claim. 28 

### U.S.C. g 1915(e)(2).statement 

### (or institutional equivalent)

. . .

### for the 6-month period 

### immediately preceding the



### filing of the

### complaint[.]" 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1915(a)(2). 

### Plaintiff has 

### provided a copy 

### ofhis trustfund account statement 

### in support 

### of his 

### motion to proceed in

### forma pauperis, but the statement has 

### not been

### certified. See 

### generally PL 

### Mot. to Prcceed 

### In Forma 

### Pauperis. A review of

### plaintiff sstatement shows that 

### it is an 

### "lnmate Statement" 

### printed

### from the 

### prison's 

### "TRUWEB" system. 

## 1d On 

### July 1,2015, 

### plaintiff had an available balance 

### of $4.54 and a

### six-month average 

### daily balance 

### of $47.50. 1d. This Court has accepted such statements asthe 

### "institutional equivalent" 

### ofa certified copy 

### ofthe trustfund account statement. 

### Bedellv. United 

### States,No.15-374,2015 

### WL 3823946, at 

### *3 (Fed. Cl. June 18,2015) 

### (quoting 28 

### U.S.C. g 1915(a)(2)); Spencer 

### v. United 

### States,98 Fed. 

### Cl. 349,354 n.8 

### (2011). And so,after 

### reviewing 

### plaintiff s

### motion, the Court 

### finds that 

### plaintiff has satisfied the requirements to proceed in

### forma pauperis,3 Nevertheless, a prisoner grante d 

### informa paupe,,i,s status is

### still "required to pay the

### full amount 

### of a

### filing fee" over

### time. 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1915(bX1). The Court is required to,,assess and, when funds exist, 

### collect, as a

### partial payment 

### ofany court fees required 

### by law, an 

### initial partial 

### filing fee 

### of 20 percent 

### of the greater

# of{A) the average 

### monthly depositsto the 

### prisoner's account; or 

### (B) the average 

### monthly balance in the prisoner's account 

### for the 6-month period 

### immediately preceding the

### filing ofthe 

### complaint or notice 

### of 

### appeal." 28 

### U.S.C. $ 

### 191s(bx1). Following payment 

### ofthe initial 

### filing fee, 

### "the prisoner shall be required 

### to make 

### monthly payments 

### of 20 percent 

### of the preceding 

### month's income credited 

### to the 

### prisoner's account. The agency 

### having custody 

### ofthe prisoner shall 

### forward pa1'rnents 

### from the 

### prisoner's account to the clerk 

### ofthe court each

### time the amount in the account exceeds $10 

### until the

### filing fees are 

### paid." 28 U. S.C.

### $ l915(b)(2); see Pleasant-Bey 

### v. United States,99 Fed. 

### Cl. 363, 366 (2011); seealso Telemaque 

### v. United States, 

### No. 

### 1l-397, 201I WL 2582201at 

### *5 (Fed. 

### Cl. June 29,

### 201l). And

3

### A prisoner may not proceed informa pauperis 

### ifthe prisoner, while detained, previously had three or more complaints dismissed asfrivolous, malicious, or for failure to state aclaim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is in imminent dangerof serious physical 

### injury. 28 U.S.C. g 

### l9l 5(g). This is commonly known as the 'three-strikes 

### rule." The dismissal 

### ofthis case counts as a"strike" under 28 U.S.C. $ 

### lels(g).



### t0so, the Court grants 

### plaintiff s

### motion

### to proceed 

### informa pauperis for the 

### limited purpose 

### of

resolving the 

### govemment's motion to dismiss. 

# D. PlaintifPs 

### Motion To 

### Appoint Counsel Is Denied As 

### Moot Lastly, 

### plaintiff has also 

### filed a 

### motion to appoint 

### counsel. See 

### generally Pl. 

### Mot, Title 28, 

### United States Code, section I9l 5(e)

### allows the Court to request an attomey to represent any person unable 

### to afford counsel. 28 

### U.S.C. $ 

### 1915(eXl). Nonetheless, because the 

### Court has determined that 

### it does not possess

### jurisdiction to consider 

### plaintiffls claim, 

### plaintiffs motion to appoint counsel is 

### moot. And so, the Court must deny 

### plaintiff s

### motion. See, e.g., 

### lV'ojtczakv. 

### UnitedStates,No. 

### 12-449,2012WL4903025,at*4(Fed. Cl.Oct. 17,2012) ("Because

. . .

### plaintiff still has 

### not raised allegations over 

### which this court has

### jurisdiction, the court denies these motions as 

### moot.").


### V. 

### CONCLUSION In sum, even when reading the 

### complaint in the 

### light most favorable to 

### plaintiff, dismissal 

### of the 

### complaint is warranted, because 

### this Court does not possess subject-matter 

### jurisdiction to consider 

### plaintiffs claims 

### alleging negligent or

### wrongful action on the part 

### of a BoP 

### employee. In addition, the Court does not possess 

### jurisdiction to consider 

### plaintifP s

### claim sounding 

### in tort, because

### jurisdiction to consider such claims rests 

### solely

### with the

### district courts. 

### Finally, dismissal 

### of 

### plaintiffs complaint is also warranted because the 

### complaint does not allege any

### wrongdoing on the part 

### of the 

### United States, and as a result, 

### fails to state a

### claim upon

### which relief may be

### granted. 

### And so,

### for 

### all of these reasons,the Court must dismiss the complaint. 

### RCFC 

### l2(b)(l); RCFC 

### l2(bX6).

The 

### Court also denies 

### plaintiffs motion to appoint counsel as moot, because the 

### Court has determined that 

### it does not possess 

### jurisdiction to consider

### plaintiffs claim. Finally, because 

### of 

### plaintiffspro sestatus-and his representation that he is unableto pay the 

### Court's 

### filing fee-plaintiff may proceed in 

### this matler in

### forma pauperis for the 

### limited purpose 

### of resolving the 

### govemment's motion to dismiss. 

### Plaintiff must, however, make payments

### tosatisfr the 

### Court's 

### filing fee pursuant

### to 28 

### U.S.C. $ 

### 191s(bxl).

1l

### And so,

### for the

### foregoing reasons,thc 

### Court:



## (l) GRANTS defendant's 

### motion to dismiss; 

### (2) DENIES 

### plaintiffs motion to appoint counsel as 

### mcot; and 

### (3) GRANTS 

### plaintiffs motion

### to 

## procdinfonna pat4teris,subject to his obligation to pay the

### filing fee 

### in

### tull pursuant

### to 28 

### U.S.C. $ 

### 19150). The 

### Clerk's Omce is direc.ted 

### to 

### ENTER final judgmeNf 

### in favor of defendant, 

### DISMISSING thecomplaint No Costs. 

### ITISSOORDERED.

t2