# ∫∫

■ tり

# 2復

# ■ it2b 5t,12メ 

## Court of∫ 

## 2b2T,Iα 

# ュ imメ

No。 19‐ 

### 1642C (Filed:Novcmber 8,2019) 

## NOT FOR PUBLICATION

PII〕 

## STON DoCORNELIUS, PlaintifQ

V. 

## THE UNITED STATES, Pro Se 

### Complaint; Sua Sponte 

### Dismissalfor Lack 

### of Subject 

### Matter Jurisdiction, RCFC 12(hX3).

Defendant.



### ORDER
On October 

### 21,2019, 

### plaintiff Preston 

### D. Cornelius, aprisoner incarcerated at the 

### Dooley State Prison 

### in Unadilla, Georgia, 

### filed acomplaint, ECF 

### No. 1, and a

### motion to proceed 

### in forma pauperis 

### in this matter, ECF 

### No.

### 2. For the

### following reasons, the court 

### DISMISSES 

### plaintiff s

### complaint 

### for lack 

### of subject matter

### jurisdiction. 

# I. Background 

### In his 

### complaint, 

### plaintiff states that the basis 

### of this court's 

### jurisdiction is his 

### claim 

### for "[d]amages 

### for unjust 

### conviction and 

### imprisonment" from the 

### United States 

### government. See ECF 

### No. 

## I at 

### 1. Plaintiff alleges that on June 

### 15,2011, he was "taken 

### into custody by the 

### Atlanta Fugitive squad on an outstanding warrants 

### from an incident alleged 

### from August 

### 9, 1987." 

### Id. 

### at2. Beyond that statement, neither the

### complaint nor 

### its attachments 

### provide any detail about the challenged conduct, but they do include legal commentary seeming 

### to connect his 

### allegedly improper arrest

### to a considerable range 

### of topics. See generally 

### id. (discussing topics 

### including, inter alia, the court's 

### jurisdiction, statute 

### of limitations, laches, adverse possession, estoppel, habeas co{pus, 

### writ of error coram nobis, accord and satisfaction, negligence, duress, and

### fraud). Plaintiff explains the 

### relief he seeks as

### follows: "Expungement 

### of records and 

### unconditional discharge sentence as

### to any current sentences 

### now 

### serving. Pursuant 

### with expungement remedy.Reentry 

### right of recover 

### ofjudgment in the amount ten 

### million dollars action at 

### law 

### for

release personal in personam

### jurisdiction." See ECF 

### No. 1at 5.
Leeal Standards 

# A. Pro Se 

### Litigants
The court acknowledges that 

### pro se

### plaintiffs are not expected 

### to frame issues 

### with the precision 

### of acommon law 

### pleading. Roche 

### v. 

### USPS,828F.2d 1555, 1558 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1987). The court 

### further acknowledges that 

### pro se

### plaintiffs areentitled 

### to a 

### liberal construction 

### of their 

### pleadings. See Haines

### v. Kemer, 404 

### U.S. 519,520 (1972) (requiring that allegations contained 

### in a

### pro se complaint be held 

### to "less stringent standards than 

### formal pleadings drafted 

### by 

### lawyers"). Accordingly, the court has examined the

### complaintthoroughly to ascertain whether, given the most favorable reading, 

### it supports

### jurisdiction inthis court. 

# B. Jurisdiction
This court is one

### of limited 

### jurisdiction. Specifically, the Tucker 

### Act grants the court the 

### authorityto consider, 

### "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)(1) (2012).
The court also has

### jurisdiction pursuant 

### to 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1495 (2012), 

### which provides 

### that: "The United States Court 

### of Federal Claims shall have

### jurisdiction to render 

### judgment upon any 

### claim for damages 

### by any person 

### unjustly convicted 

### of an offense against the 

### United States and 

### imprisoned." In order

### to invoke

### jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 1495, however, 

### plaintiff must

### first satisff the requirements 

### of 28 U.S.C. $ 

### 2513(a). SeeAbu-Shawish 

### v. United States, 120 Fed. 

### CL.812,813 (2015) (citations 

### omitted). Section 2531(a) states: 

# (a) Any person suing under section 1495 

### of this 

### title must allege and prove that: 

# (1) His 

### conviction has been reversed or set aside on the ground that he is 

### not 

### guilty of the offense 

### ofwhich he was convicted, 

### or on new 

### trial or rehearing hewas found 

### not 

### guilty of such offense, as appears 

### from the record 

### or certificate 

### of the court setting aside

### or reversing such 

### conviction, or that he has been pardoned upon the stated ground 

### of innocence and unjust 

### conviction and

2

# (2) He did not commit any 

### of the acts charged 

### or his acts, deeds, 

### or omissions 

### in connection 

### with such charge constituted 

### no offense against 

### the United States, 

### or any State,

### Territory 

### or the 

### District 

### of Columbia, and 

### he 

### did not 

### by misconduct 

### or neglect cause 

### or bring about 

### his own Prosecution. 

### "Therefore, 

### in order 

### for this court 

### to have

### jurisdiction, a

### plaintiff must obtain a

### certificate of innocence 

### from the 

### district court

### which statesthat not only was he not

### guilty of the crime 

### of conviction, but also that none of his acts related to the charged crime were other 

### crimes." Abu-Shawish, 120 Fed. 

### Cl. at 813. 

### If, at any 

### point, the court finds that 

### it lacks

### jurisdiction over a

### particular case,that
case must be 

### dismissed. See 

### Rule 12(h)(3), Rules 

### of the 

### United States Court 

### of Federal Claims 

### (RCFC). The court may 

### properly conduct 

### this analysis on 

### its

### own. See Folden v. 

### United States 

### ,379 F

### .3d 1344,1354 (Fed



### . Cir. 2004) 

### ("Subject matter 

### jurisdiction may be challenged 

### at any 

### time by the parties or 

### by the court sua sponte."). 

# III. Analysis 

# A. Lack 

### of Subject 

### Matter Jurisdiction
The claims presented 

### in

### plaintiff s

### complaint are, by 

### their nature, relatedto his arrest and 

### imprisonment. The statement 

### of his requested 

### relief indicatesthat he seeks money damages as compensation 

### for his allegedly improper arrest and imprisonment, as 

### well as release 

### from 

### prion. See ECF 

### No. 1at

### 5. Although 

### plaintiff lists 

### myriad legal concepts 

### in his

### filings, when read as a

### whole, 

### it is clear that the gravamen 

### of his 

### compiaint is related

### to criminal process. The court, therefore, addresses 

### plaintiff s 

### ro-pluint on these 

### terms. See. e.g., 

### Katz

### v. Cisneros, 16 

### F.3d 1204,1207 (Fed. 

### Cir. lgg4) ("Regardless 

### ofthe charccterization 

### of the case ascribed 

### by [the

### plaintiffl in its 

### complaint,we look to the true nature 

### of the action 

### in determining the existence or not

## of jurisdiction.") (citing Livingston v. Derwinski 

### ,959 F .2d

### 224,225 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1992)).


### This court has no

### jurisdiction over 

### criminal maffers, and thus does not have the 

### authorityto consider

### plaintiff s

### complaint. E.g., Joshua 

### v. United States, 17 F.3d

### 378, 379 (Fed.

### Cir. 1994). 

### It follows, then, that a request 

### for release 

### from prison is not

### within this court's 

### jurisdiction. Woodson 

### v. United States, 89 Fed. 

### Cl. 640,651 (2009) 

### (citing Bowen 

### v. Massachusetts, 487 

### U.S. 879, 905 

### (1988)). As for 

### plaintiff s monetary claim, there is no 

### allegation in the complaint that his 

### claim is founded on a court-issued 

### certificate 

### of innocence sothat

### this court 

### would have

### jurisdiction over his 

### claim. Because this prerequisite is absent here,

### plaintiff s unjust imprisonment 

### claim must be dismissed by the court 

### for lack 

### of subject matter

### jurisdiction. Abu-Shawish, 120 Fed. 

### Cl.

### at 813- 

### t4.Moreover, the 

### complaint identifies 

### "Aimee Smith, Warden

. . 

### ." as a defendant 

### in

this case. ECF 

### No.

# l. This court's

### jurisdiction is 

### limited to 

### "claim[s] against the 

### United States

. . .

## ." 28 

### U.S.C. $

## la9l(a)(l). This court has no 

### authority to hear claims or render 

### judgment against parties other than the 

### United States. See 

### United States

### v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) 

### (holding that

### this court's subject matter

### jurisdiction "is confined to the 

### rendition of money judgments against the 

### United States, and 

### if the 

### relief sought is against others than the 

### United States the suit astothem must be ignored as beyond the

### jurisdiction of the 

### court") (citations

### omitted). For 

### this additional reason, 

### plaintiff sclaims are outside the subject matter

### jurisdiction ofthis court. 

# B. Transfer
Because 

### plaintiff s

### complaint is not

### within this court's

### jurisdiction, the court considers whether transfer 

### to another federal court is

### appropriate. Transfer 

### of cases

### from this court

### to a

### district court is governed 

### by 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 163

## | (2012), 

### which states 

### in relevant part, as

### follows:
Whenever a

### civil action 

### is

### filed in fthis] court

. 

### . .and 

### [this] court finds that there is awant 

### ofjurisdiction, the court shall, 

## if it is inthe interest

### ofjustice, transfer such action or appeal

### to any other such court

. . . 

### inwhich the action or appeal could have been brought atthe

### time it was

### filed or noticed, and the action or appeal shall proceed as

### if it had been 

### filed in or noticed for the court 

### to

### which 

### it is transferred on 

### the date upon 

### which 

### it was 

### actually 

### filed in or noticed 

### for the court 

### from which 

### it istransferred. 

### Id. Here, 

### plaintiff s

### complaint includes so

### few factual allegations that the court is unable 

### to determine either whether transfer

### would servethe interests 

### ofjustice inthis case, orto 

### which court atransfer

### would be 

### made. As such.the court concludes that transfer is not warranted. V. Conclusion
There is no

### jurisdiction in 

### this court 

### for 

### plaintiff sclaims, and his 

### complaint must, therefore, be

### dismissed. Accordingly, 

### plaintiff sapplication to proceed 

### in forma p.auperis, ECF 

### No. 2, is 

### GRANTED for the 

### limited pu{pose 

### of determining 

### this court's 

### jurisdiction. The 

### clerk's 

### office is directed

### to 

### ENTERjudgment 

### for defendant 

### DISMISSING 

### plaintiff s

### complaint for lack 

### of subject matter

### jurisdiction, without prejudice, pursuantto 

### RCFC 12(hX3). 

### Additionally, the 

### clerk's 

### office is directed

### to 

### REJECT anyfuture f,rlings not 

### in compliance 

### with this court's rules 

### from 

### plaintiff.

### ITIS S0 0RDERED.

ATRICIA E.CAIV [PB Judge