# 0Rt0truAr

lJn

# tbt @niteD 

# $ltstes @ourt of

# felrrul [,Lsims No. 15-569C 

### Filed November 5, 2015 

# FILED Nov

## - 5 2015 

### ISAAC A. POTTER, JR.,



### Plaintiff,

THE 

### LNITED STATES, U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS 

### Pro Se; 

### Rule 

### 12(bXl), Subject-Matter Jurisdiction; Rule 41(b), Failure to Prosecute; Claims 

### Against a Private Party; 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1631, 

### Motion toTransfer; 

### In Forma Pauneris. Defendant.

Isaac

### A. Pouer, 

### Jr., Orlando, 

### FL, 

### plaintiffpro se. Melissa 

### L. Baker, 

### TrialAttomey, Brian A. Mizoguchi, Assistant 

### Director, Robert E' Kirschman, 

### Jr., Director, Benjamin C. 

### Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant 

### Attomey General, 

### commercial Litigation Branch, 

## civil Division, united states Department 

### of Justice, 

### washington, DC, for defendant. 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRIGGSBY. Judge 

# I, INTRODUCTION Pro se

### plaintiff, Isaac

### A. Potter, Jr., brought this action seeking unspecified monetary damages and other 

### relief for alleged misconduct 

### by aprivate health care services 

### provider in connection 

### with medical treatment 

### providedto his spouse. The govemment has moved 

### to dismiss the 

### complaint 

### for lack 

### of subject-matter

### jurisdiction, pursuant 

### to Rule 

### l2(b)(1) 

### ofthe Rules

### ofthe United States 

### Court of Federal

### Claims

### C'RCFC'). Plaintiff has also moved to proceed in 

### this matter 

### informa pauperls and

### totransfer this matter 

### tothe 

### United States 

### District Court 

### for the 

### District

### of Columbia. For the reasons set

### forth below, the

### Cou( GRANTS defendant's 

### motion to dismiss, 

### GRANTS 

### plaintiff s

### motion 

### to proceed in

### forma pauperis, and 

### DENIES 

### plaintiff s

### motion to transfer.

# il, FACTUALAND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND'



# A, Factual Background Plaintiff

### pro se, isaac 

### A. Potter, Jr., commenced this action on June 3,

### 2015. See

### generally 

### Compl. Plaintiff alleges numerous causes 

### of action 

### in the 

### complaint including: false allegations, 

### retaliatory conduct, conspiracy to harm a patient and the 

### patient's 

### family, emotional distress, mental anguish, slander,

### violation of the 

### patient's and spouse

### of the 

### patient's constitutional rights, 

### discriminatory acts,various 

### malicious negligent acts, negligent misdiagnoses, and

### violation of the 

### patient's 

### bill ofrights for the 

### hospital industry according 

### to 

### law. 

### Id.aI 

## l-2. Plaintiff also alleges 

### violations of various 

### Florida state laws; the Emergency 

### Medical Treatment and

### Active Labor 

### Act, 42 

### U.S.C. $ 1395dd; I8 

### U.S.C. $ 242; and the 

### United States 

### Constitution. Id. at 1' 5-8'

## l0' Specifically, 

### plaintiff alleges that, during the 

### period

### 201i-2015,Adventist Health system 

### (,,Adventist")-a private health care services 

### provider-engaged in various 

### wrongdoing related

### to the treatment 

### ofhis spouse

### for a

### recurring staph 

### infection and other 

### maladies. 

### /d. Plaintiff also alleges that 

### Adventist's conduct led !o, among otherthings, his spouse experiencing 

### "[flever and/or 

### chills," "blood in urine," and 

### "urine output 

### is less than usual

### amount'" 

### Id' at 

### 10' 

# B. ProceduralBackground Plaintiff filed the 

### complaint 

### inthis matter on June

### 3,2015. See 

### generally 

### compl. on Jwe24,2015, defendant

### filed a 

### motion to dismiss 

### plaintiff s

### complaint for iack

### of subject-matter 

### jurisdiction, pursuant

### to RCFC 12(bX1). See 

### generally Def. 

### Mot. on June 

### 16,2015, 

### plaintiff attempted

### to

### file a

### collection 

### of documents 

### entitled "Notice 

### of Lawsuit and Request 

### for Waiver

### of Service 

### of Summons." Because there is no 

### provision in the 

### court's Rules 

### for the

### filing of such documents, the Court directed the

### Clerk's Office to retum the documents 

### to

### plaintiff unfiled on June 

### 17,2015. See June 

### 17,2015 Order. On

### July 1,2015, 

### plaintiff filed a 

### motion to transfer this case

### to the 

### United States 

### District court for the 

### District of 

### columbia.2 see

### generaily Pl. 

### Mot. On 

### July 6, 2015, the govemment 

### filed

I The facts recited in this Memorandum Opinion and Order are takenfrom plaintifPs complaint ("Compl' at 

## _"); defendant's motion to dismiss ("Def. Mot.

## at-"); plaintiffs motion to transfer 

### ("Pl Mot.

## at-"); oerenaunt's opposition to 

### plaintiff s motion to transfer 

### ("bef. opp. to Pl. Mot. at

## -"); plaintiff sAugust 

### l7' 2015 notice 1,lpl. Notice ai

## _"); and defendant's response to 

### plaintiff s notice ("Def. Resp. to Notice at

## -"). 2ln the motion to transfer, plaintiffrefers to Rule 

### l9 ofthe Federal Rulesof 

### Civil Procedure-which pertains to requiredjoinder of 

### partiis. Seegenerally Pl. Mot.; Fed. R.Civ. P. 19. But, plaintiff does not 

### identiff aan

### opposition to 

### plaintiff s

### motion to

### transfer. See 

### generally Def. Opp. 

### to Pl. 

### Mot. Plaintiff did 

### not



### file a

### timely response to the defendant's 

### motion to dismiss. And so,on

### August 4, 2015, the 

### Court issued an order 

### instructing 

### plaintiffto show causeon or before 

### August 18, 2015, asto

### why this action should 

### not be dismissed 

### for failure to prosecute pursuant

### to Rule 

### 41(b). See 

### generally Order 

### to Show Cause. On 

### August 17,2015, 

### plaintiff filed anotice 

### with the Court 

### which restates his request to transfer this case to

### district court. See 

### general/y Pl. 

### Notice. On 

### August 3l 

### ,2015, defendant

### filed a response to

### plaintiffs notice. See 

### generally Def. Resp.to 

### Notice. Plaintiffhas not

### filed a response 

### to the defendant's 

### motion to dismiss, or to the 

### Court's Order 

### to Show Cause. 

# III, STANDARDS OF 

### REVIEW 

# A. Pra Se 

### Litigants Plaintiff is proceeding in this matter 

### pro se. The Court recognizes that parties proceeding 

### pro se are granted greater leeway than 

### litigants represented 

### by counsel. See Haines v. 

### Kerner, 404 

### U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) 

### (holding that

### pro se complaints are held 

### to "less stringent standards than 

### formal pleadings drafted 

### by 

### lawyers"). Nonetheless, 

### "[w]hile a court should be rcceptive ro

### pro se 

### plaintiffs and assistthem, 

### justice is 

### ill-served when 

### ajurist crosses the 

### line from finder 

### offact to advocate." Demesv. United States,52 Fed. 

### Cl.365,369 (2002). And so,

### while the Court may excuse 

### ambiguities in 

### plaintiff s

### complaint, the Court does 

### not excuse the 

### complaint's 

### failures. See Henke

### v. United 

### States,60 F.3d 795, 799 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1995). 

### In addition, this Court has long recognized that 

### "the leniency afforded 

### to a

### pro se 

### litigant with respect 1o mere 

### formalities does not 

### relieve the burden 

### to meet

### jurisdictional requirements." 

### Minehan v. united States,75 Fed. 

### Cl.249,253 (2007). For 

### this reasorl, a

### pro se

### plaintiff-like any other 

### plaintiff-must establish the Court's 

### jurisdiction to consider his 

### claim by a preponderance 

## of the

### evidence. Rilesv. United 

### States,93Fed. 

### Cl. 163, 

### 165(2010). 

# B. Rule 

### 12(b)(l) When deciding a 

### motion to dismiss 

### for lack 

### of subject-matter

### judsdiction, this Court must

assume that 

### all undisputed facts alleged in the 

### complaint are true and must draw 

### all reasonable inferences in the 

### non-movant's 

### favor. See 

### Erickson v. 

### Pardus,55l U.S.89,94(2007);United Pac.

party to bejoined in his motion totransfer. And so, the Court does not read 

### plaintiff s motion to also seek thejoinder of parties.

### Ins.Co.v. IJnitedStates,464F.3d1325,1328(Fed.Cir.2006); 

## RCFCl2(bxl). Plaintiffbearsthe

burden 

### ofestablishing subject-matter

### jurisdiction, and must do so 

### by apreponderance 

### of the 

### evidence. Reynolds v.

### Army &

### Air Force Exch. 

### Serv.,846F.2d746,748 (Fed.

### Cir. 1988)' And so, should the Court determine that 

### "it lacks

### jurisdiction overthe subject matter, 

### it must dismiss the 

### claim;' Matthews 

### v. United 

### States,72Fed. Cl..274,278 (2006). 

### Inthis regard, the 

### United States Court 

### ofFederal Claims is a court 

### of limited

### jurisdiction and "possess[es] 

### only that 

### power authorized 

### by Constitution and statute

. . .

## ." Kokkonen v. 

### Guardiqn Life Ins. Co.

### ofAm.,511U.S. 375, 377 

### (1994). Specifically, the 

### Tucker

### Act grants the 

### Court 

### jurisdiction over: 

### [A]ny claim against the 

### United Statesfounded either upon the 

### Constitution, or any 

### Act ofCongress or any 

### regulation

### ofan executive department, or upon any express or 

### implied conftact 

### with the 

### United States, 

### orfor liquidated or 

### unliquidated damages 

### in cases 

### not sounding 

### in tort. 28 

### U.S.C. g 1a91(a)(1). 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 

### ofFederal Claims] whenever the substantive 

### right exists." United States v. Testan, 424 

### rJ.5.392,398 (1976). And so,to come

### within the 

### jurisdictional reach and

### waiver oftheTucker 

### Act, a

### plaintiff must 

### identifu a separate source

### of substantive law that creates the 

### right to money damages. 

### Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 , 1172 (F ed. 

### Cir. 

### 2005). 

### If the Court finds thatthe source 

### of law alleged is not money-mandating, the Court must dismiss the case 

### for lack of 

### iurisdiction.

## /d at 1173; 

### RCFC 

### 12(bxl) 

# C. Rule 41(b) Rule

### 4l(b) ofthe Rules 

### of the 

### United States Court 

### ofFederal Claims provides that: 

### Ifthe plaintiff fails to prosecute or

### to comply 

### with these rules 

### or a court order, the court may dismiss on its 

### own motion or the defendant may move to dismiss the action or any 

### claim against 

## it. Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under

### this subdivision (b) and any dismissal not underthis 

### rule-except one 

### for lack

### ofjurisdiction or

### failure to

### join a party under 

### RCFC 19-operates as an 

### adjudication on the merits. RCFC 

### 41(b). Rule 

### 4l (b) is a necessary 

### tool to ensure 

### efficient docket management and 

### to prevent the undue delay 

### of the 

### litigation. 

### Linkv. I{abash R.

### Co'370 U.S.626,629-30 

### (1962)("The authority 

### ofa federal 

### trial court 

### to dismiss a

### plaintilf saction 

### with prejudice because

### ofhis failure to prosecute cannot seriously be

### doubted."). In addition, the

### Cout's authorityto dismiss a

### complaint "sua sponte

### for lack 

### ofprosecution has generally been considered an inherent power,



### 'govemed not 

### by rule or statute but by the 

### control necessarily vested 

### in courts

### to manage 

### their own affairs so as

### to achieve the 

### orderly and expeditious 

### disposition 

### ofcases."' Claude E.

### Atkins Enters., 

### Inc. v. [Jnited 

### States,899 F.2d I I

### 80, I 185 (Fed.

### Cir. 1990) (quoting 

### Link,370 U.S. at 630-31). 

# IV. DISCUSSION 

# A, Dismissal Is

### Warranted For Failure To Prosecute As an 

### initial matter, dismissal 

### of 

### plaintiff s

### complaint for failure to prosecute this matter is warranted under Rule 

### 41(b). RCFC 

### 41(b). Rule 41(b) provides 

### in pertinent part that: 

### If the 

### plaintiff fails to prosecute or to 

### comply 

### with these rules or a court order, the court may dismiss on its 

### own motion or the defendant may move 

### to dismiss the action 

### or any 

### claim against 

### it. RCFC 

## 4l(b). "While dismissal 

### of a

### claim is a harsh action, especially 

### to

### apro se 

### litigant, 

### it is 

### justified when a 

### partyfails to pursue 

### litigation diligently and disregards the 

### court's rules and show

cause 

### order." Whiting 

### v. United 

### States,99 Fed. 

### Cl. 13, 

### 17(2011). Dismissal 

### of

### plaintiff s

### complaint pursuantto RCFC 

### 4l(b) is

### justified here. Despite the passage 

### of several months since 

### plaintiff s responsive

### filing was due, 

### plaintiff has 

### not responded to the

### jurisdictional concems raised 

### in the defendant's 

### motion to dismiss.3 

### Plaintiffhas also 

### failed to 

### comply 

### with the 

### Court's August 4, 2015 Order 

### to Show Cause 

### why the matter should not be dismissed 

### for failure to prosecute. The Court is cognizant 

### of 

### plaintiffs pro se

### status. But, given 

### plaintiffs failure to

### diligently pursue 

### this 

### litigation and

### plaintiffs total disregard 

### of the 

### Court's 

### order to Show cause, the

### court must conclude that dismissal 

### of this matter is

### justified. ,se€ 

### Ilhiting, gg Fed. 

### Cl. at 17. 

### And so, the

### court dismisses the 

### complaint pursuant

### to Rule

### 4l(b). RCFC 41(b). 

# B. This 

### Court Lacks Subject-Matter 

### Jurisdiction To Consider 

### Plaintiff s

### Claims Notwithstanding 

### plaintiff s

### failure to prosecute this matter, dismissal 

### ofthe 

### complaint is also warranted because the 

### Court does not possess 

### jurisdiction to consider 

### plaintiff s

### claims. RCFC

3The deadline for the

### filing of 

### plaintiffs response to the defendant's motion to dismiss wasJuly 27, 2015. See RCFC

### 7(b). On August 17,2015, 

### plaintifffiled a notice 

### withthe Court, which quotes the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure regarding dismissal and change ofvenue, and appears to restate his request that the Court tranifei this matter to the United States District Court for the District of Cohtmbia. See generally Pl 

### Notice. But, this

### filing does not address, or respondto, any of the j urisdictional issues raised in the defendant's motion todismiss. 1d.

### 12(bxl). Inthis regard, the government has moved to dismiss 

### plaintiff s

### complaint upon 

### two

grounds: First, the government arguesthat the Court does not possess 

### judsdiction to consider 

### plaintiff sclaims against a private 

### party. Def. 

### Mot. at

### 4-5. Second, the govemment also arguesthat the Court does not possess

### jurisdiction to consider the claims alleged in the

### complaint. 

### Id.at5'8. Forthe reasons discussed 

### below, the 

### Court agrees that 

### it does 

### not possess 

### jurisdiction to consider this matter. 

# 1. The

### Court Does 

### Not Possess 

### Jurisdiction To Consider 

### Plaintiff s

### Claims

Against 

### A Private 

### Party As athreshold matter, 

### it is

### well established that

### this Court does 

### not possess 

### jurisdiction to consider claims asserted against a

### private 

### party. United States v. Sherwood, 312 

### U.S. 584, 588 (1941) (The 

### Court 

### ofFederal Claims 

### "is without

### jurisdiction 

### ofany suit brought against 

### private parties

. . .

### ."). Rather,the 

### United States isthe 

### only proper defendant 

### in cases brought in the 

### United States Court 

### of Federal

### Claims. Pikutin v. United 

### States,97 Fed. 

### CI.71,75 (2011); Stephenson v. 

### [Jnited States,58 Fed. 

### Cl. 186, 190 

### (2003) 

### ("[T]he only proper defendant 

### for any matter before 

### this court is the 

### United States, 

### not its 

### officers, nor any other 

### individual."). 

### A plain reading 

### of the 

### complaint here shows that

### plaintiff is asserting claims against a private health care services 

### provider-Adventist Health Systems. See 

### generally 

### Compl. Infact, the factual allegations in the 

### complaint pertain solely to the alleged conduct 

### of Adventist in connection 

### wirh the treatment 

### of

### plaintiffs spouse. 

## 1d (Plaintiff alleges that, 

### during the period 2011-2015, 

### Adventist engaged 

### in various 

### wrongdoing related

### to thetreatment 

### ofhis spouse

### for a 

### recurring staph 

### iniection and other 

### maladies). And so, even the most generous reading 

### of 

### plaintiffs complaint makes clear that 

### plaintiffhas not alleged any substantive claims against the 

### United States government, or any 

### of its agencies.a 

## Id. Given this, the 

### court does not possess 

### jurisdiction to consider 

### plaintiff s

### claims. MayCo. v. UnitedStates,38 Fed. 

### CI.414,416 (1997)(Plaintiff listed the 

### United States as a defendant but the 

### complaint contained no "substantive allegations at

### all asainst the 

### United States" and therefore the 

### Court lacked

### jurisdiction.).

a

### plaintiffs co.plaint initially identified the Department of Health and Human Services asthe defendant in this matter. See generally Compl. But, the complaint contains no allegations of wrongdoing onthe part

### of the Deoartment 

### &Health and Human Services, or any other federal government agency

### - Id.

# 2. The

### Court Does 

### Not Possess 

### Jurisdiction To Consider 

### Plaintiff s

### Tort, State 

### Law 

### Or 

### Criminal Law Claims Dismissal 

### ofthis matter is also warranted because the 

### Court does not possess 

### jurisdiction to consider 

### plaintiff s

### tort law, state law,5 or 

### criminal law 

### claims. See

### Compl. 

### at1-2,7'11. As an

### initial matter, to the extent that

### plaintiffis asserting 

### tort law claims, 

### it is

### well establishedthatthe Court does not possess

### jurisdiction to consider such 

### claims. Shearin 

### v. United States,992 

### F.2d 1195, 1197 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1993) 

### ("lt is

### well settled that 

### the [United States Court 

### of Federal 

### Claimsl lacks...

### jurisdiction to entertain 

### tort claims."); see

### also28 U.S.C. $ 

### 1491(a). Inthe 

### complaint, 

### plaintiff alleges numerous

### tort law claims 

### including, "false allegations," "emotional distress," 

### "mental anguish," and 

### "slander." Compl. at 

### 1. This Court does not possess 

### jurisdiction to entertain claims sounding 

### in

### tort. 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1491(a) 

### ("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 ofCongress or any 

### regulation

### ofan executive department, 

### or upon any express 

### or implied contract 

### with the 

### United States, or

### for liquidated or 

### unliquidated damages 

### in case 

### not sounding in

### tort."). As a result, the Court must dismiss 

### plaintiff s

### tort 

### law claims for lack 

### of subject-matter

### jurisdiction. 1d.; 

### RCFC 

### l2(bXl). The Court also does not possess 

### jurisdiction to consider 

### plaintiffs state 

### law claims. Souders v. S.

### Carolina Pub. Serv.

### Auth.,497 F.3d 1303, 1307 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2007) 

### ("Claims founded on state 

### law are also outside the scope

### ofthe limited

### jurisdiction of the 

### Court ofFederal Claims.") 

### (citing United States v. 

### Mitchell,463 U.S. 206,215-18 

### (1983)). Inthis regard, 

### plaintiff alleges 

### violations of the 

### Florida Mental Health 

### Act, commonly known asthe Baker

### Act. Compl. at 8; 

### Collins v. 

### State, 125 So.

### 3d 1046, 1048 (Fla. 

### Dist. Ct. 

### App. 

### 2013). This state 

### law claim falls outside 

### of the 

### limited

### jurisdiction of

### this Court. Souders,497 F.3d 

### at 1307. 

### And so, the Court must also dismiss 

### plaintiff s state 

### law claim 

### for lack of subject-matter

### jurisdiction. RCFC 

### 12(bxl). This Court is

### similarly without

### jurisdiction to consider 

### plaintiff s

### criminal law 

### claims. See Joshua v. 

### [Jnited States, 17 F.3d 3?8, 379 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1994) (the Court 

### of Federal

### Claims "has no 

### jurisdiction to adjudicate any claims whatsoever under the federal 

### criminal code"); see also Jones v.

sSpecifically, plaintiff alleges "violation 

### ofFla. State Ann. Subsection 415.1I 

### I S. 775.083 or S.775.082"; violation of,,health care surrogat€subsection 765-201-765-205"; violation 

### of"the Baker Act 2S7.057(3)(eXb)"; andviolation 

### ofthe 

### "20l4 Florida Statutes Title 

### XXX Social Welfare Chapter 415." Comnl. at 

### l. 8.

### Ilnited States,440 F.

### App'x 916, 918 (Fed. 

### Cir.2011). In his 

### complaint, 

### plaintiff alleges a

### violation

of

### title I8, 

### United States Code, section

### 242,which makes 

### it a

### crime for a person acting under 

### color 

### of law 

### to

### willfully deprive a person 

### of a 

### right or 

### privilege protected 

### by the 

### Constitution or laws

### of theUnitedStates. 18U.S.C.$242; 

### Compl.atS-9;Hardinv.UnitedStates,2015WL6437379,at *4(Fed. Cl. 

### Oct.22,2015). But, 

### it is

### well established that

### this Court does not possess 

### jurisdiction to adjudicate 

### plaintiff s

### criminal law 

### claim. Joshua, l'1 F.3d at

### 379. And so,the Court must also dismiss 

### plaintiff s

### criminal law claim for lack 

### of subject-matter

### jurisdiction. RCFC 12(b)(1).



# 3. Plaintiff Fails 

### To 

### Identify A Money-Mandating Provision Of 

### Law Dismissal 

### of 

### plaintiff s

### complaint is also warranted because

### plaintiff has 

### not identified any money-mandating 

### provisions of federal law that confer j

### urisdiction on 

### this 

### Court. In

### this regard, the 

### Tucker

### Act confers 

### jurisdiction for this 

### Cou( to entertain: 

### [A]ny claim against the 

### United States founded either uponthe 

### Constitution, or any 

### Act ofCongress or any 

### regulation

### ofan 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. $ 

### 1a91(aX1). As discussed above, theTucker 

### Act 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 

### ofFederal Claims] whenever the substantive 

### right 

### exists." [Jnited states v. Testan, 424 

### U.S.392,398 (1976). 

### Andso,tobringa claim pursuant

### to the 

### TuckerAct, 

### plaintiff must show thatthe 

### constitutional provisions, statutes, 

### or regulations upon

### which he relies are 

### money-mandating. 

### Fisher,402F.3dat1172. ln this regard, 

### plaintiff improperly relies upon the Emergency 

### Medical Treatment and

### Active LaborAct 

### C'EMTALA), 42 

### U.S.C. $ l395dd, to establish 

### jurisdiction. Compl. 

### ar5,7; see42 

### U.S.C. $ 

### l395dd. In the 

### complaint, 

### plaintiff cites 

### to section 

### 1395dd(dx2) ofthe 

### EMTALA-a federal statute that ensures 

### public access 

### to emergency 

### medical services regardless 

### ofability to pay. Robertsv. Galen 

### of virginia, \nc.,525 U.S.249,250 (1999). While the 

### provision cited by 

### plaintiff does 

### permit private parties to 

### bring 

### civil claims 

### for personal 

### injury against ahospital that violates the 

### EMTALA, the 

### EMTALA is not a money-mandating statute that creates asubstantive 

### right to bring claims against the 

### United States. See 42 

### U.S.C. $ 

### 1395dd(dx2). And so,

### plaintiff cannot 

### properly rely upon 

### this statute 

### to establish this Court's 

### jurisdiction over his

### claims' Testan,424 U.S. at 398.

### Plaintiffalso cannot 

### rely upon the cursory references 

### to a

### constitutional 

### violation in the



### complaint to establish

### jurisdiction. Compl. at 1

### , 10. Inthe 

### complaint, 

### plaintiff alleges, 

### without further explanation, a 

### "violation of the 

### patient's and spouse

### of the patients 

### constitutional 

### rights." 1d. 

### at

# l. Plaintiff also alleges a 

### "taking 

### ofproperty ordained 

### by 

### maniage;' 

### Id.at 10. But, such

### fleeting references 

### to constitutional violations in the 

### complaint are 

### insufficient to establish 

### this Court's 

### jurisdiction. Indeed, 

### it is

### well establishedthat a

### constitutional claim must be a 

### claim for money damages against the 

### United States 

### to be cognizable under theTucker 

### Act. See 

### Mitchell,463 U.S. 

### at216; see 

### also Rick's Mushroom Serv., 

### Inc.

### v. United 

### States,521 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed. 

### Cir' 2008) 

### (,,[p]laintiff must

. . .

### identify a substantive source 

### of law that createsthe 

### right to recovery 

### of money damages against the 

### United States."). 

### while the 

### complaint doesgenerally allege a

### violation 

### of constitutional rights, 

### plaintiff failsto 

### identify a

### specific, money-mandating 

### provision of the 

### Constitution that 

### would create a 

### right to recover money damages against the 

### United States in 

### this

case. See

### generally Compl. Because 

### ofthis failure, the Court must dismiss 

### plaintiff s

### constitutional claim for lack

### of subject-matter

### jurisdiction



## . See 

### Fisher,402 F.3d 

### at1173; Russell

### v. United States, 78 Fed. 

### Cl. 281,285 (2007) 

### ("plaintiff must establish morethan the mere existence

### ofa statute 

### or constitutional provision to bring 

### himself 

### within the

### jurisdiction of this 

### court")'6 

# C. Transfer Of 

### Plaintiff s

### Complaint Is 

### Not 

### Appropriate Transfer 

### of this matter 

### to a

### district court is also not 

### warranted. Perhaps 

### in anticipation of the 

### Court's determination that 

### it does not possess

### jurisdiction to entertain his claims, 

### plaintilfhas also moved to transfer this matter 

### to the 

### United States 

### District Court 

### for the 

### District of 

### Columbia. See 

### generallyPl. 

### Mot. Title 28, 

### United States Code, section 1631, provides 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 orfiled 

### with such a

### court and that 

### courtfinds that there is awant 

### ofjurisdiction' the court shall, 

### if it is in the intercst 

### ofjustice, transf'er such action 

### or appeal to any other such 

### coutl in 

### which the action 

### or appeal

6

### plaintiff alleges in the complaint that Adventist engaged in a

### 'laking of property ordained by, marriage." Compl. at 

### 10.1o the extent ihat this claim could be construed as atakings claim againsl the.United States' 

### plainiifffails to 

### identif any action on th€part 

### ofthe government that could constitute the alleged taking. 

## )do^, u. United Statei,3g 

### l F.3d 1212, 

## Itl 8 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 

### ("A claimant under the Takings Clause must show that the government, by some specific action, took aprivate property interest for apublic use without just compensation.").

### 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 istransfened on the date upon

### which 

### it was 

### actually

### filed in or noticed 

### for the 

### court 

### fiom which 

### it is transferred. 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 1631. 

### And so, transfer 

### of this case 

### to a

### district court 

### would be appropriate 

## if"(l) the transferor 

### court lacks

### jurisdiction; (2) the action 

### could have been brought 

### in the transferee court at the 

### time 

### it was

### filed; and 

### (3) transfer is 

### in the interest

### ofjustice." Zoltek Corp. v. United States,672 

### F.3d 1309, 1314 

### (Fed. Cir.2012); seealso spencer 

### v. united 

### states,98 Fed. 

### Cl. 349, 359 (2011). 

### In addition, the 

### United States Court 

### ofAppeals for the Federal 

### Circuit has held that the 

### phrase,,in the interest 

### ofjustice" set

### forth in section 1631 "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, 1000 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1987) 

### (citation 

### omitted). This Court has also held that the 

### "decision totransfer rests 

### within the sound discretion 

### ofthe transferor court, and the court may decline 

### to transfer the case 

### '[i]fsuch transfer 

### would nevertheless be

### futile given the weakness 

### of 

### plaintiffs case

on the 

### merits."' spencer, g8 Fed. 

### Cl. at 359 

### (quoting Fa 

### ulknerv. IJnited 

### States,43 Fed. 

## CI 54, 56 (1ee9)).

### In 

### light 

### ofthe above standards, the Court concludes that the transfer 

### of this matter to the 

### United States 

### District Court 

### for the 

### District of 

### Columbia-or to any other 

### district 

### court-would not be in the interest 

### ofjustice, given the weakness 

### of 

### plaintiffs claims against the 

### United States- 

### As discussed above, a

### plain reading 

### of the 

### complaint makes clear that

### plaintiff does not allege any 

### wrongdoing on the part 

### of the 

### United states, or any federal govemment 

### agency. see

### generally 

### Compl. Rather,

### plaintiff sclaims are against 

### Adventist Health System.

## /d. Because 

### plaintiff

asserts no substantive 

### claims against the 

### United Sates in the 

### complaint, atransfer 

### of this case to a 

### district court 

### would be

### futile. See 

### Faullcner,43 Fed. 

### Cl. at

### 56. And so,the Court denies 

### plaintiff s 

### motion to transfer.?

7Transfer 

### ofthis matter to the United States District Courtfor the District of Columbia would also appear to be inappropriate, because 

### plaintiff is a resident of Florida and all of his claims are based upon events that occurred in the stateof Florida. Seegenerally Compl.' see also 28 U.S.C. $ 

### l39l(e)(l) (actions against the United States or its agencies may be

### ;broughi in any

### judicial district in which 

### (A) adefendant inthe action 

### ,".ia"r, <S) asubstaniial part 

### ofihe events or omissions giving riseto the claim occurred, or asubstantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (C) the plaintiff resides 

### if no real property is involved inthe action").

10

# D. Plaintiff s

### Motion For Leave 

### To Proceed 1z 

### Forma Pauperis Satisfies 

### The 

### Statutory Requirement Lastly, 

### plaintiffhas filed a 

### motion to proceed 

### informa paupens, in which he requests a 

### waiver 

### ofthe Court's 

### filing fee because he lacks the 

### financial resources 

### to pay 

### the

### fee. See 

### generally PI. 

### Mot. to Proceed 

### In Forma 

### Pauperis. This Court may authorize commencement 

### of a suit 

### without prepayment 

### offees when a person submits an

### affidavit including a statement 

### of 

### all assets, adeclaration that he

### or she is unableto pay the fees, and a statement 

### ofthe nature 

### of the action and a

### belief that he or she is entitled 

### to redress. .See 28 

### U.S.C. $ 195 1(a); seealso 28 U.S.C. $

### 2503(d). Dueto the 

### Court's summary 

### disposition of this case, and 

### plaintiffspro se status,the 

### Court finds that 

### plaintiff satisfies the requirements to proceed in

### forma paupens for the purpose 

### of resolving the defendant's 

### motion to dismiss. 

### And so, the 

### Court grants 

### plaintiffs motion to proceed in

### forma pauperls for the 

### limited purpose 

### of resolving the defendant's 

### motion to dismiss. 

# V. CONCLUSION In sum, dismissal 

### of

### plaintiffls complaint pursuant 

### to RCFC 

### 41(b) iswarranted in this matter because 

### plaintiffhas failed to prosecute this case and

### failed to comply 

### with the 

### Court's August 4, 2015 Order 

### to Show Cause. 

### Notwithstanding 

### plaintiff s

### failure to prosecute this matter, dismissal 

### ofthe complaint for lack

### of subject-matter

### jurisdiction is also warranted, because

### plaintiff has 

### not met his burden

### to show thatthe Court possesses

### jurisdiction to consider his 

### claims. RCFC 12(bX1) In this regard, a 

### plain reading 

### ofthe 

### complaint shows that 

### plaintifPs claims areclaims against a private 

### party. This Court does not possess 

### jurisdiction to consider such

### claims Similarly, 

### plaintiff s

### tort law, state 

### law, and 

### criminal law claims are

### jurisdictionally precluded, because the Court does not possess

### jurisdiction to entertain these

### claims' 

### Plaintiff also 

### fails to show that the Court possesses

### jurisdiction to entertain his health care 

### discrimination and 

### constitutional claims, because he cites 

### to no money-mandating source 

### of law 

### that confers 

### jurisdiction upon 

### this 

### court to consider those 

### claims. And so,

### for 

### all of these reasons, 

### plaintiff has not met his burden to establish that the Court possesses 

### jurisdiction to entertain his claims and thc Court must dismiss the

### complaint. RCFC 

### 12(bxl)' In addition, atransfer 

### ofthis matter to the 

### united states 

### District court for the 

### District

### of Columbia is not appropriate, becausethe 

### complaint does 

### not assert any substantive claims against the 

### United States and, as a result, atransfer 

### of this matter 

### would be

### futile. Lastly, 

### in light of the 

### Court's summary 

### disposition ofthis case-and 

### plaintiff s representation that he is unableto pay the 

# ll

### Court's 

### filing 

## ferthe Court finds that 

### ptaintiff may proceed in

### fonna pauperis 

### fot the 

### limited

purpose

### ofresolving defendant's 

### motion to dismiss. 

### And so,

### for the

### foregoing reasons,the 

### Court: 

## (l) GRANTS defendant's 

### motion to dismiss; 

### (2) DENIES 

### plaintiffs motion to transfer; and 

### (3) GRANTS 

### plaintiffs motionto proce'ed 

### informa pauperis. The 

### Clerk's Office is directed 

### to 

### ENTER finaljudgrnent in favor of defendant, 

### DISMISSING thc 

### complaint. No costs. 

### IT IS SO 

### ORDERED.

12