ORIGINAT

lrn tltt @nitr! $ltstts @ourt of /t[eru[ @luims

No. 16-659C

(Filed: August 24, 2016)

(NOT TO BE PUBLISHED)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 New York 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 relating to 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

New York 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-800-222-1811
The United States has filed a motion to dismiss, contending that this court lacks

jurisdiction over claims against parties other than the United States. Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss

("Def.'s Mot."), ECF No. 6. As an exhibit to this motion, the govemment has submitted a

decision of the New York Claims Court, which decision contains a "claim number" of "1 15969"

and "motion number" of "M-76366," which are identical to the 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 denied the motion as improper under state law. /d Mr. Driscoll has

responded to the govemment's motion to dismiss, elaborating on the actions of the New York

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 States v. 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, 13 80 (Fed. Cir.

1987) (although courts hold pro se plaintiffs to less stringent standards, this leniency does not

extend to plaintiff s burden 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 state tribunals, 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 RookerietdmanToctine, 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 of Appeals 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 j udgment 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 to August 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 because 28 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

Tucker Act.

3Plaintiff s motion to proceed informa pauperis, ECF No. 3, is GRANTED'
It is so ORDERED.

Charles F. Lettow

Judge