ORIGINAL 

3Jn tbe Wniteb ~tates QCourt of jf eberal QClaitns 

WILLIAM A. TOWNSEND, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE UNITED STATES, 

Defendant. 

No. 16-1424C 

Filed December 1, 2016 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

FILED 

DEC - 1 2016 

U.S. COURT OF 

FEDERAL CLAIMS 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Pro Se; Rule 12(h)(3), Dismissal for Lack 

of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction; 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1631. 

---------------) 

William A. Townsend, Indiantown, FL, plaintiff prose. 

Stephen Charles Hough, Trial Attorney, L. Misha Preheim, Assistant Director, Robert E. 

Kirschman, Jr., Director and Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, 

Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Depruiment of Justice, Washington, 

DC, for defendant. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

GRIGGSBY, Judge 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiff pro se, William A. Townsend, brought this action challenging the conditions of 

his incarceration in connection with his criminal conviction in the State of Florida. For the 

reasons explained more fully below, the Court does not possess subject-matter jurisdiction to 

consider plaintiffs claim. And so, the Court DISMISSES the complaint for lack of 

jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule l 2(h)(3) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal 

Claims ("RCFC"). 
11. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 

A. Factual Background 

Plaintiff pro se, William A. Townsend, commenced this action on October 21, 2016. See 

generally Campi. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the Martin Correctional Institution located 

in Indiantown, Florida, in connection with his criminal conviction for first degree murder and 

other offenses under Florida state law. See Sentencing Report, State of Florida v. Townsend, No. 

97-7241 (Cir. Ct. Fla. Nov. 17, 1999). 

Plaintiffs complaint is difficult to follow. See generally Campi. But, it appears that the 

gravamen of plaintiffs complaint is a challenge to his criminal conviction and to the conditions 

of his incarceration. 2 Id. In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that certain prison officials or 

inmates have interfered with the receipt of his mail and infringed upon his First Amendment 

rights. Id. at 1. Plaintiff also alleges that, among other things, he "is being held against [his] 

Will." [sic] Id. 

In this regard, plaintiff cites 28 U.S.C. § 2254-the federal statute that permits a prisoner 

in custody pursuant to a state court judgment to seek relief in federal court by petitioning for a 

writ of habeas corpus. Id. at 4. Plaintiff also points to the federal civil rights statute-42 U.S.C § 

1983-as another legal basis for his claim. Id. 

Prior to commencing this action, plaintiff had filed several cases seeking to challenge 

various aspects of his conviction and sentence to incarceration in the federal courts. On October 

10, 2014, plaintiff filed a case in this Court in which he alleged that certain Florida Department 

of Corrections employees had committed hate crimes against him and interfered with his mail. 

See Complaint, Townsend v. United States, No. 14-976 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 10, 2014). The Court 

dismissed that matter on March 11, 2015. See Order of Dismissal, Townsend v. United States, 

1 The facts recited in this Memorandum Opinion and Order are taken from plaintiffs complaint 

("Comp!.") and comi records that pertain to plaintiffs previous litigation in the federal courts. 

2 In 1999, a Florida jury convicted Mr. Townsend of murder in the first degree and felony possession of a 

firearm. See Sentencing Repoti, State of Florida v. Townsend, No. 97-7241 (Cir. Ct. Fla. Nov. 17, 1999). 

Mr. Townsend was sentenced to life without parole. Id. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal 

affirmed his conviction in 2001. See Mandate, State of Florida v. Townsend, No. 97-7241 (Cir. Ct. Fla. 

Jul. 16, 2001). 

2 
No. 14-976 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 11, 2015). On June 7, 2012, Mr. Townsend filed a civil rights case in 

the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida in which he also alleged, 

among other things, that various Florida Department of C01Tections employees committed hate 

crimes against him and interfered with his mail. See Complaint, Townsend v. Palmer, No. 12-

176 (N.D. Fla. Jun. 7, 2012). 

In addition, on September 4, 2014, Mr. Townsend filed a writ of mandamus in the United 

States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, challenging, among other things, the 

conditions of his incarceration at several different institutions over the past several years. See 

Writ of Mandamus, Townsend v. Secy., Dept. of Corr., No. 14-1065 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 4, 2014). 

Lastly, on November 4, 2014, Mr. Townsend filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the 

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, challenging the constitutionality 

of his criminal conviction and sentence to incarceration. See Writ of Habeas Corpus, Townsend 

v. Secy., Fla. Dept. of Corr., No. 14-24126 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 4, 2014); Report and 

Recommendations, Townsend v. Secy., Fla. Dept. of Corr., No. 14-24126 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 10, 

2014). 

B. Procedural Background 

Plaintiff filed the complaint in this matter on October 21, 2016. See generally Comp!. 

On November 21, 2016, the government filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of 

subject-matter jurisdiction, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(l). See generally Def. Mot.3 

III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW 

A. Pro Se Litigants 

Plaintiff is proceeding in this matter prose, without the benefit of counsel. And so, the 

Court applies the pleading requirements leniently. Beriont v. GTE Labs., Inc., 535 F. App'x 919, 

925-26 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 501F.3d1354, 1356 (Fed. 

Cir. 2007)). 

3Because the Comt has dete1mined sua sponte that it does not possess subject-matter jurisdiction to 

consider plaintiff's claims, the Court does not address the matters raised in the government's motion to 

dismiss and dismisses this matter pursuant to RCFC l 2(h)(3). 

3 
When determining whether a complaint filed by a prose plaintiff is sufficient to survive a 

motion to dismiss, this Court affords more leeway under the rules to pro se plaintiffs than to 

plaintiffs who are represented by counsel. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) 

(holding that pro se complaints, "however inaiifully pleaded," are held to "less stringent 

standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."); Matthews v. United States, 750 F.3d 1320, 

1322 (Fed. Cir. 2014). But, there "is no duty on the part of the trial court to create a claim which 

[the plaintiff] has not spelled out in his pleading." Lengen v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 317, 

328 (2011) (brackets existing; citations omitted). And so, while "a prose plaintiff is held to a 

less stringent standard than that of a plaintiff represented by an attorney, ... the pro se plaintiff, 

nevertheless, bears the burden of establishing the Court's jurisdiction by a preponderance of the 

evidence." Riles v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 163, 165 (2010) (citing Taylor v. United States, 

303 F.3d 1357, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Given this, the Court may excuse ainbiguities, but not 

defects, in the complaint. See Colbert v. United States, 617 F. App'x 981, 983 (Fed. Cir. 2015); 

see also De mes v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 365, 368 (2002) ("[T]he leniency afforded prose 

litigants with respect to mere formalities does not relieve them of jurisdictional requirements.") 

(citation omitted). 

B. Jurisdiction And RCFC 12(h)(3) 

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) (holding that subject-matter jurisdiction is "a threshold question that must be resolved ... 

before proceeding to the merits")). In this 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., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The Tucker 

Act grants the Coutijurisdiction over: 

[A ]ny 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). 

4 
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 of Federal Claims] whenever the substantive right 

exists." United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976) (citation omitted). And so, to pursue 

a substantive right against the United States under the Tucker Act, a plaintiff must identify and 

plead a money-mandating constitutional provision, statute, or regulation; an express or implied 

contract with the United States; or an illegal exaction of money by the United States. Cabral v. 

United States, 317 F. App'x 979, 981 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 

1167, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); Norman v. United States, 429 F.3d 1081, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

"[A] statute or regulation is money-mandating for jurisdictional purposes ifit 'can fairly be 

interpreted as mandating compensation for damages sustained as a result of the breach of the 

duties [it] impose[s]."' Fisher, 402 F.3d at 1173 (quoting United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 

206, 217 (1983)) (brackets existing). 

Specifically relevant to this matter, it is well established that the Court does not possess 

jurisdiction to review or to consider criminal matters. See Cooper v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 

306, 311-12 (2012) (holding that this Court cannot review criminal matters). It is also well 

established that "subject-matter jurisdiction, because it involves a court's power to hear a case, 

can never be forfeited or waived." Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (citations 

omitted). "[F]ederal courts have an independent obligation to ensure that they do not exceed the 

scope of their jurisdiction, and therefore they must raise and decide jurisdictional questions that 

the parties either overlook or elect not to press." Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 

U.S. 428, 434 (2011) (citations omitted). And so, "a court has a duty to inquire into its 

jurisdiction to hear and decide a case." Special Devices, Inc., v. OEA Inc., 269 F.3d 1340, 1342 

(Fed. Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). 

In addition, "[a] comi may and should raise the question of its jurisdiction sua sponte at 

any time it appears in doubt." Arctic Corner, Inc. v. United States, 845 F.2d 999, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 

1988) (citation omitted). To that end, the Court may not allow any matter to proceed that alleges 

a basis for jurisdiction "'so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit."' 

Kroll v. Finnerty, 242 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 

528, 536-37 (1974)). And so, should the Court determine at any stage during litigation that it 

lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court must dismiss the action. RCFC 12(h)(3). 

5 
IV. DISCUSSION 

A. The Court Does Not Possess Jurisdiction To Consider Plaintiff's Claims 

The Court may not entertain Mr. Townsend's challenge to his criminal conviction and 

sentence to incarceration. It is well established that this Court does not possess subject-matter 

jurisdiction to review or consider criminal matters. See Cooper, 104 Fed. Cl. at 311-12 (holding 

that this Court cannot review criminal matters). In the complaint, Mr. Townsend alleges that 

certain prison officials or inmates have interfered with the receipt of his mail and infringed upon 

his First Amendment rights in connection with his incarceration at the Martin Correctional 

Institution. Comp!. at 1. Plaintiff also alleges in the complaint that he "is being held against 

[his] Will." [sic] Id. 

Because the gravamen of Mr. Townsend's complaint is a challenge to his criminal law 

conviction and the conditions of his incarceration, the Court does not possess subject-matter 

jurisdiction to consider plaintiff's claims. And so, the Court must dismiss the complaint for lack 

of subject-matter jurisdiction. RCFC 12(h)(3). 

In addition, to the extent that plaintiff alleges a civil rights claim in the complaint, the 

Court is similarly without jurisdiction to entertain such a claim. See, e.g., Jefferson v. United 

States, 104 Fed. Cl. 81, 89 (2012) (citing multiple cases holding that the Court of Federal Claims 

lacks jurisdiction to entertain claims brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1988). In the 

complaint, plaintiff points to a portion of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C § 1983, as a legal basis 

for his claim. Comp!. at 4. It is well established that this Court may not consider claims arising 

under section 1983. See, e.g., Jefferson, 104 Fed. Cl. at 89. And so, the Court does not possess 

subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain any of plaintiffs claims.4 RCFC 12(h)(3). 

B. Transfer Of This Matter To Another Court Is Not In The Interest Of Justice 

Lastly, it is not in the interest of justice to transfer plaintiffs complaint to a district court, 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (2012). See Tex. Peanut Farmers v. United States, 409 F.3d 1370, 

1374-75 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (stating that the Comi of Federal Claims should consider whether 

4 The Comt is similarly without jurisdiction to consider t01t claims. See Trafay v. United States, 503 F.3d 

1339, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 

6 
transfer is appropriate once the court has determined that it lacks jurisdiction). Section I 63 I 

states, in pertinent part, that: 

Whenever a civil action is filed in a court as defined in section 610 of this 

title or an appeal, including a petition for review of administrative action, is 

noticed for or filed with such a court and that court finds that there is a want 

of jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such 

action or appeal to any other such court in which the action or appeal could 

have been brought. 

28 U.S.C. § 1631; see 28 U.S.C. § 610 (2012) (defining courts as "courts of appeals and district 

courts of the United States, the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, 

the District Court of Guam, the District Court of the Virgin Islands, the United States Court of 

Federal Claims, and the Court of International Trade"). The United States Comi of Appeals for 

the Federal Circuit has also held that "[t]he phrase 'if it is in the interest ofjustice' relates to 

claims which are nonfrivolous and as such should be decided on the merits." Galloway Farms, 

Inc. v. United States. 834 F.2d 998, I 000 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1631 ). And so, 

"[a] decision to transfer rests within the sound discretion of the transferor court, and the comi 

may decline to transfer the case '[i]f such transfer would neve1iheless be futile given the 

weakness of plaintiffs case on the merits."' Spencer v. United States, 98 Fed. Cl. 349, 359 

(2011) (alteration in original) (quoting Faulkner v. United States, 43 Fed. Cl. 54, 56 (1999)). 

The facts in this case demonstrate that plaintiff has unsuccessfully pursued the same or 

similar claims to those asse1ied here in prior litigation before this Comi and several district 

courts. For example, on March 11, 2015, this Comi dismissed a previous case brought by 

plaintiff in which he also alleged that certain Florida Department of Corrections employees had 

impersonated him, interfered with his mail and endangered his family members. See Order of 

Dismissal, Townsend v. United States, No. 14-976 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 11, 2015). The United States 

District Court for the Northern District of Florida also dismissed a similar case brought by 

plaintiff in that comi on September 26, 2012. See Repoti and Recommendation, Townsendv. 

Palmer, et al., No. 12-176 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 26, 2012). Given this, a transfer of this matter would 

be futile. And so, the Court concludes that a transfer of this matter to a district court is not in the 

interest of justice. 5 

5 Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee, nor has he filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. A prisoner 

may not proceed in form a pauperis if the prisoner, while detained, previously had three or more 

7 
V. CONCLUSION 

In sum, when construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, a plain reading of the 

complaint demonstrates that the Court does not possesses subject-matter jurisdiction to consider 

plaintiffs claims. And so, the Court must dismiss this matter for lack of subject-matter 

jurisdiction. RCFC 12(h)(3). 

For the foregoing reasons, the Comi DISMISSES the complaint. 

The Clerk's Office is directed to ENTER final judgment in favor of the government 

DISMISSING the complaint. 

No Costs. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

complaints dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted, "unless the prisoner is in imminent danger of serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. § 191 S(g). The 

dismissal of this case counts as a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 191 S(g). 

8