# ORIGINAT

lrn tltt 

# @nitr! $ltstts @ourt of

# /t[eru[ @luims No. 16-659C 

### (Filed: August 24,

### 2016) 

### (NOTTO BE 

### PUBLISHED)

* * * * * t( *,8 +* rr* * * * :t :i* * * * * * * * * +*f :i :r* * + 

# FILED AUG 

### 2

### 4 20t6 U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS 

### MICHAEL DRISCOLL,



### Plaintiff,

UNITED STATES, Defendant'

!t {. *,1. *,t :* :t*,t * * * :i( :* :** *,1. *r :1.* * * **,t *,t :f* * ** 

### OPINION AND ORDER Michael 

### Driscoll, Selden, 

### New York, 

### pro se. zachary J. 

### Sullivan, 

### Trial Attorney, 

### commercial Litigation Branch, 

## civil Division, United States Department 

### of Justice, 

### Washinglon, D.C.for defendant. 

### With him on the 

### brief were Benj amin C. 

### Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant 

### Attomey General, 

### Civil Division, and Robert E. 

### Kirschman, Jr., 

### Director, and Elizabeth 

### M. Hosford, Assistant 

### Director, 

## civil Division, United States Department 

### of Justice, Washington, D.C. 

### LETTOW, Judge. 

### Plaintiff Michael 

### Driscoll seeks 

### review of a decision by the 

### NewYork State Court 

### of claims 

### (,New York claims 

### court"), denying his 

### motion for default

### judgment. compl. fl 2

### ("I am

### filing my Summons and 

### Complaint 

### with the 

### United States 

### Court of Claims, against the (l'/YS) 

### court of

### claims; for 

### violating my 

### constitutional rights,Judicial Law Proceedings, 

### policies and procedures[] 

### goveming proper response 

### time (21) days,

### to a summons and 

### complaint on

### file 

### tt TSSOS

## t W-7

### ercq):;) (emphasii added). 

### Mr. Driscoll's complaint states 

### thal he had 

### filed suit in the 

### New 

### York Claims Court requesting 

### relief relatingto

### child support 

### payments. Compl. 

### fl 3. Attachments to 

### his complaint 

### ""plain thut

### h. had been 

### involved in a

### divorce proceeding, 

### which apparently resulted 

### in an

### obligation to pay 

### child support. Neither 

### Mr. Driscoll's complaint nor its^attachments make any claims or allegations against the 

### United States'r 

### IMr. Driscoll states that he has also

### filed suit in the 

### United States 

### Tax Court to challenge 

### NewYork state

### taxes. 

### compl. fl

## 7.lnDriscollv. commissioner, 

### No. 12051-16 

### (Tax Ct.)' the

uspsrnlcKrNc* 9114 9999 4431 3548 1338 48 S.CUSTOMER For Trac{ing or inqlincs go to USPS com RECEIPT ffcelll-800-222-1811The 

### United States has 

### filed a 

### motion to dismiss, contending that

### this court lacks



### jurisdiction over claims against parties other thanthe 

### United States. 

### Def.'s Mot.to Dismiss 

### ("Def.'s Mot."), ECF 

### No.

### 6. As an

### exhibit tothis 

### motion, the govemment has submitted a decision 

### of the 

### NewYork Claims Court, 

### which decision contains a 

### "claim number" of "1 15969" and 

### "motion number" 

### of "M-76366," which are identical 

### tothe numbers cited 

### in 

### Mr. Driscoll's complaint. Def.'s 

### Mot. at 

### Ex.

### A (showing order 

### of the state

### court). That decision shows that 

### Mr. Driscoll filed a 

### motion 

### for a default

### judgment against the State 

### of New 

### York, and that the 

### New York Claims Court deniedthe 

### motion as 

### improper under state

### law.

# /d Mr. Driscoll has responded 

### tothe 

### govemment's motion to dismiss, elaborating on the actions 

### of the 

### NewYork Claims

### Court. Pl.'s Resp. 

### to Def.'s 

### Mot.to Dismiss, ECF 

### No. 7. Pursuant to the

### Tucker

### Act, codifred at 28 

### U.S.C' $ 1a91(a), 

### this court's 

### jurisdiction is 

### limited to actions against the 

### United Starcs. United Statesv. 

### Sherwood,3l2 U.S. 584, 588 

### (1941). 

### If the court at any 

### time determines 

### it lacks

### jurisdiction, it must dismiss the case. 

### Rule 12(hX3) 

### ofthe Rules 

### ofthe Court 

### ofFederal Claims; see also 

### Brady

### v. United 

### States,54l Fed. 

### Appx. 991, 993 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2013) 

### (affirming sac sponle dismissal 

### of 

### apro se

### complaint for lack 

### of jurisdiction); Kelley v. Secretary, 

### Llnited States 

### Dep't of 

### Labor, 812 F

### 2d 1

### 378, 1380 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1987) 

### (although courts hold 

### pro se 

### plaintiffs to less stringent standards, 

### this leniency does 

### not extend

### to 

### plaintiff sburden 

### of establishing

### jurisdiction). Because 

### Mr. Driscoll makes no allegations against the 

### United States, the court must dismiss his case. The 

### court also declines transfer 

### of the case pursuant

### to 28 

### U.S.C. $ 163

### i, which permits transfer 

### in the interest 

### ofjustice to another federal court that 

### would have had

### jurisdiction. Federal courts generally lack

### jurisdiction directly to 

### review the decisions 

### of statetribunals, and consequently the court can discem no federal 

### forum to

### which this case 

### could be

### transfened. See 

### Beils;. United States, 

## -Fed. 

## Appx.-, -,2016WL3645112' at 

### *1-2 (Fed. 

### Cir' July 8,2016) (affrrming a

### trial court's decision 

### to decline transfer 

### to another federal 

### court, clIing the Rooker

### ietdmanToctine, when 

### plaintiff sought 

### review of a state 

### tribunal's decision 

### (refeting to Rooker v. 

### Fidelity Trust 

### Co.,263 U.S. 413,415-16 (1923), and 

### District of Columbia Court ofAppeals v. 

### Feldman,460 U.S. 462 (1983))). The court concludes that 

### Mr. Driscoll's complaint must be dismissed 

### for lack

### ofsubject matter 

### iurisdiction. 

### 2 The 

### clerk is directed 

### to enter judgment 

### in accord

### with this disposition.3 

### No costs.

Commissioner 

### filed a 

### motion to dismiss 

### for lack

### ofjurisdiction, and 

### Mr. Driscoll obtained an extension 

### of time toAugust 17, 2016 

### to 

### file a response to that 

### motion. See Order 

### ofJuly 26, 2016, 

### Driscoll v. Commissioner, 

### No. 12051-16 

### (Tax Ct.). 2Even 

### if the court were

### to determine that 

### Mr. Driscoll made allegations against the 

### United States, the court 

### would dismiss the case because28 

### U.S.C. $ 1915(eX2)(BXi), 

### (ii) is applicable 

### (Mr. Driscoll has moved 

### for leave 

### to proceed 

### informa pauperisl), and his 

### complaint makes no 

### ;llegations that 

### could be construed as stating an action 

### for monetary 

### relief 

### within the ambit 

### ofthe TuckerAct. 

### 3Plaintiff s

### motion 

### to proceed 

### informa pauperis, ECF 

### No. 3, is 

### GRANTED'

### It is so 

### ORDERED. Charles F. 

### Lettow Judge