ORIGINAL 

3Jn tbe Wniteb $>tates <!Court of jf eberal Qelaitns 

No. 16-lOlOC 

(Filed: December 2, 2016) 

************************************* 

* 

ASHTON KRUKOWSKI, * 

* 

FILED 

DEC - 2 2016 

U.S. COURT OF 

FEDERAL CLAIMS 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE UNITED STATES, 

* Rule 12(b)(l) Motion to Dismiss; 

* Tort Claims; False Arrest Claim; 

* Constitutional Claims; Proper 

* Defendants; Claim Pending before 

* another Court. 

* 

Defendant. * 

* 

************************************* 

Ashton Krukowski, Las Vegas, Nevada, pro se Plaintiff. 

Reta E. Bezak, with whom were Benjamin C. Mizer, Deputy Principal Assistant Attorney 

General, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Director, and Deborah A Bynum, Assistant Director, 

Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, 

D.C., for Defendant. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

WHEELER, Judge. 

Ashton Krukowski, a currently incarcerated pro se plaintiff, seeks relief in this 

Court for false arrest, constitutional violations, and various tort claims associated with his 

arrest in February 2016. The Government has filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction, or in the alternative, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can 

be granted. For reasons explained below, the Comt GRANTS the Government's motion 

to dismiss Mr. Krukowski's claims. 

Background 

Mr. Krukowski is currently being held at the Clark County Detention Center in 

Nevada. Com pl. at 3. He alleges that he was falsely arrested, subject to violations of his 
constitutional rights, the victim of identity theft, and has suffered abuse and neglect while 

in custody. Id. He further alleges that a motion to dismiss counsel and to appoint alternate 

counsel was wrongfully denied by the United States District Court of Nevada. Comp!. at 

4. On August 15, 2016, he filed a complaint with this Court seeking relieffor all of these 

claims. On October 14, 2016, the Government filed a Rule l 2(b )( 1) motion to dismiss for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or in the alternative, a Rule 12(b )( 6) motion for failure 

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Def.' s Mot. at 1. Mr. Krukowski filed a 

response entitled "Summary Supplementing Facts to Complaint" on October 18, 2016. 

Pl. 's Resp. at 1. 

In his October 18, 2016 response, Mr. Krukowski informs the Court of the 

background information supporting his various claims. Mr. Krukowski first claims that 

there are at least 20 charges on his criminal record for which "someone was arrested and 

booked ... under [his] name." Id. at 5-10. As a result, he claims he has been the victim of 

identity theft. Id. at 5. 

Next, Mr. Krukowski claims he was falsely arrested and subject to an illegal search 

and seizure. On February 5, 2016, a security guard knocked on Mr. Krukowski's hotel 

room door investigating allegations that someone was "attempting to murder someone from 

inside the residence with a firearm." Id. at 11. The security guard "mace[ d] Ashton in the 

face and pull[ ed] him outside." Id. The security guard then called for police assistance. 

The police arrived, detained Mr. Krukowski, and began searching his property "without 

probable cause." Id. at 12. Mr. Krukowski was arrested and upgraded to a "category/code 

5" due to his extensive criminal record. Id. at 12. 

Mr. Krukowski believes he suffered violations of his constitutional rights following 

his arrest. Id. at 12-18. These include being subject to a competency hearing without his 

consent, being forced to answer questions during a competency proceeding, not receiving 

bail, and not being allowed to dismiss his counsel and receive alternative counsel. Id. at 

12-16. In addition, he claims that he has endured "a lot of abuse and neglect" while in 

custody. Comp!. at 4. 

The complaint in this case names several defendants including seven officers from 

the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, an employee of Rock Security, an 

employee of the Emerald Suites Hotel, an officer of the Henderson Police Department, 

three employees of the District Attorney's Office, two employees of "A.S.T.A.", two 

employees of"I.N.F.M.", an employee of the city of Las Vegas, five employees of District 

Public Defenders Office, an employee of the Clark County Detention Center, and an 

employee of Clark County. Comp!. at 7-8. 

Mr. Krukowski has submitted two additional complaints to the 8th U.S District 

Court of Nevada regarding these same allegations. Comp!. at 4 ("in case #2: 16-cv-O 1782-

APA-PAL and in case #2:16-cv-01701-APG-VCF, [about the] same incidents .... "). One 

2 
of these complaints was filed three weeks before Mr. Krukowski filed the complaint with 

this Court. Krukowski v. LVMPD, et al., No. 2:16-cv-01782-APG-PAL (D. Nev. Jul. 26, 

2016) (Dkt. No. 11, Att. A). According to Mr. Krukowski, he has also filed an appeal with 

the Supreme Court of Nevada which was subsequently dismissed. Pl. 's Resp. at 18. 

Discussion 

The Tucker Act ordinarily is the focus of subject matter jurisdiction in this Court, 

and states: 

The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have 

jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the 

United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act 

of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or 

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. § 1491(a)(l). The Tucker Act itself "does not create a cause of action." RHI 

Holdings, Inc. v. United States, 142 F.3d 1459, 1461 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Thus, a plaintiff 

must identify a "separate source of substantive law that creates the right to money 

damages" in order to invoke the Court's jurisdiction over a claim. Greenlee County, Ariz. 

v. United States, 487 F.3d 871, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Fisher v. United States, 402 

F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Failure to establish jurisdiction under the Tucker Act 

requires the Court to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(l). Outlaw v. United States, 116 Fed. Cl. 

656, 658 (2014). When deciding a Rule 12(b)(l) motion to dismiss, a court must assume 

all the undisputed facts in the complaint are true and draw reasonable inferences in the nonmovant' s favor. Erikson v. Pardus, 551U.S.178, 189 (1936). Courts hold pleadings made 

by pro se plaintiffs to a less stringent standard and liberally construe language in the 

plaintiff's favor. Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94; Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 

However, none of Mr. Krukowski's claims survive the 12(b)(l) motion to dismiss. 

This Court only has jurisdiction to entertain claims against the United States. 28 

U.S.C. § 1491(a)(l); United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941); Moore v. Public 

Defenders Office, 76 Fed. Cl. 617, 620 (2007) ("When a plaintiff's complaint names 

private parties, or local, county, or state agencies, rather than federal agencies, this court 

has no jurisdiction .... "). Mr. Krukowski has not named any federal agency or the United 

States as a defendant. 

This Court does not possess jurisdiction over "any claim ... pending in any other 

court .... " 28 U.S.C. § 1500. Claims based on substantially the same facts are considered 

the same claim for purposes of§ 1500. Pellegrini v. United States, 103 Fed. Cl. 47, 50 

(2012). This complaint and the complaint currently filed in the U.S. District Court of 

3 
Nevada cite the same facts to allege very similar claims. Def.'s Mot., Att. A (Mr. 

Krukowski claims he "was forced to answer questions" and that his criminal record was 

"altered and modified."). Mr. Krukowski states that the complaint filed in the U.S. District 

Court of Nevada contains the same "violations." Pl.'s Resp. at 15. 

This Court does not have the authority to hear claims that sound in tort. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1491(a)(l); Shearin v. United States, 992 F.2d 1195, 1197 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Federal 

Tort Claims Act grants jurisdiction to hear tort claims exclusively to federal district courts. 

28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(l). Claims of false arrest, abuse and negligence sound in tort. 

O'Conner v. United States, 355 F. App'x 412, 413 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Dumonde v. United 

States, 87 Fed. Cl. 651, 653 (2009). Identity theft is also a tort over which this Court does 

not have jurisdiction. Aldridge v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 113, 120 (2005). Thus, the 

Court does not have jurisdiction to hear Mr. Krukowski's claims of false arrest, abuse and 

neglect in custody, and identity theft. 

Mr. Krukowski also asserts violations of his constitutional rights. He claims 

violations of the Fourth Amendment because he was subjected to an illegal search and 

seizure, and violations of his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment during 

and after his trial. Comp!. at 3. However, this Court does not have jurisdiction over Fourth 

Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment violations because monetary damages are not 

available under either of these provisions. Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. 

Cir. 1997); LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Stephanatos v. 

United States, 81 Fed. Cl. 440, 445 (2008). 

Conclusion 

For the reasons stated above, the Government's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. 

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. In addition, Mr. Krukowski's 

motion to appoint counsel is DENIED as moot. See Dkt. No. 12. No costs. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

4 

THOMAS C. WHEELER 

Judge