# 0ffiflGINAt

lln tbt 

## @nitr! $ltatts {,ourt of

# feirrul @lsims

No. 13-664 C 

### (Filed

### April 9,2014)
UNPUBLISHED
{. ,t +,t,1. 'k 'k,F,t * t<,F:F * :1. ,k


### KERRYA. GIBSON, 

# * Pro Se

### Complaint; RCFC



### Pro Se

# Plaintffi 

# * 12(b)(1); 

### No Jurisdiction to



# * Review 

### Denial of Workers' 

# * Compensation Benefits orto 

# * Collaterally Attack Judgments 

### of 

# * a 

### United States 

### District Court. 

# Defendant. ,r' ,* 

### * ,* 

### {. ,t {. * * + *. 

### * * * * * * *


### Kerry A. Gibson, St. 

### Louis, MO, 

### pro se.
Scott Slater, 

### United States Department 

### of Justice, 

### with whom were Stuart F. 

### Delery, Assistant 

### Attomey General, 

### Bryant G. Snee,

### Acting Director, Scott D. 

### Austin, Assistant 

### Director, Washington, DC, 

### for defendant.'



### OPINION

Bush, Senior Judge.



### r/ JamesW. Poirier ofthe United States Department of Justice became counsel of record for the United States after briefing of defendant's motion to dismiss was complete. 

## FILED

APR

## - I2014 U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

TFIE 

### UNITED STATES,The court has before 

### it defendant's 

### motion to dismiss the 

### complaint, 

### filed

under Rule 12(bX1) 

### of the Rules of the 

### United States Court 

### of Federal Claims 

### (RCFC). Because the court lacks

### jurisdiction over 

### plaintiff sclaims, the court grants defendant's 

### motion and must dismiss this case. The court's

### jurisdictional analysis is set

### forth below. 

### BACKGROUND,
Mr. Gibson'spro se

### complaint addresses the actions

### of a number 

### of federal agencies, 

### including the Department 

### of Veterans 

### Affairs, Social Security 

### Administration, Department 

### of Labor, and the

### Army Corps of Engineers, and characterizes these actions as

### "constructive Bad 

### Faith Insurance 

### Handling."' Compl. at 

### 1. According to thethree-page complaint, 

### which is not easily deciphered due

### to its 

### cryptic and nonspecific nature, 

### Mr. Gibson suffers

### from health probiems and his requests 

### to obtain a

### disability retirement or a

### workers' compensation settlement have been 

### denied. 

### Id. at

## l-2. Most specifically, the complaint references a

### workplace accident that occurred on

### July 15,2011

### while 

### plaintiff was a

### civilian employee 

### of the Corps 

### of Engineers, and a notice 

### of decision issued by the Department of 

### Labor's Office 

### ofWorkers' Compensation Programs 

### (OWCP) on 

### August 

### 21,2013. Id. 

### at2.
In the prayer

### for relief presented inthe complaint, 

### Mr. Gibson seeks: (1) a declaratory 

### judgment regarding these denials

### of benefits; (2) an order that defendant "take 

### affirmative action to ensure thatthe

### activities complained 

### of above never again are engaged in bythem or any of 

### their agents"; 

### (3) an 

### injunction against 

### "discriminati[on] on the basis 

### offamilial status"; (4) compensatory and 

### punitive damages; (5) attorneys' fees and costs; and, (6) any other 

### reliefthe court should deem 

### proper. Compl. at

### 2-3. His opposition brief suggests that the

'?iThe facts recited here are takenfrom the unpaginated complaint. The court has supplied page numbersto the complaint submitted by plaintiff aswell asto plaintiff sopposition brief. 

### r/ The complaint also alleges certain misdeeds of officials ofthe Stateof Missouri. This court has nojurisdiction over the actions ofstate officials andwill not discuss further any allegations regarding state officials in the complaint. See, e.g.,Vlahakisv. United States,215 CI. 

### cl. 1018, 1018 (1978).purpose of 

### Mr. Gibson's suit may be

### to set aside the dismissals of

### two suits he



### filed in the 

### United States 

### District Court for the Eastern 

### District of Missouri which also targeted the actions

### ofvarious federal agencies regarding his 

### disability claims; these

### two suits were both dismissed 

### for lack 

### ofjurisdiction. Pl.'s Opp. at 2 

### ("pllaintiff challenge[s] the

### jurisdiction of the 

### district court, and

### filed the appropriate action

### to set-asidethevoid

### judgments."); see Gibson v.

### Army Corps

## of Engineers St. Louis, 

### No.4:13-cv-01676-1{FA,2013 

### WL 6161120 (E.D. 

### Mo. Nov. 

### 25,2013); Gibsonv. Social Sec.Admin., No. 

### 4:13-cv-01417-IIEA,2013 WL 3941386 (E.D. 

### Mo.), 

### aff'd,533 F.

### App'x 692 (9th 

### Cir. 

### 2013). Readingthe 

### complaint and

### plaintiff s

### opposition brief together, 

### plaintiff seeks 

### review in this court 

### ofat least onedenial 

### of federal benefits and may also attempt to 

### collaterally attack the dismissals

### of his suits in the 

### district courl.


### DISCUSSION
Pro Se 

### Litigants
The court acknowledgesthat 

### Mr. Gibson is 

### proceedingpro se and is 

### "not expected to frame issues 

### with the precision 

### of acommon law 

### pleading." Roche v. U.S. Postal 

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

### Cir. 1987). Pro se 

### plaintiffs are entitled to a 

### liberal construction 

### oftheir pleadings. See Haines v. 

### Kerner,404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) 

### (requiring that allegations contained 

### in a

### pro secomplaint be held to "less stringent standards than

### formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"). 

### Accordingly, the court has examined the 

### complaint and

### plaintiff sopposition 

### brief thoroughly and has attempted 

### to discern 

### all of 

### plaintiff sclaims and legal arsuments. 

## IL Jurisdiction
In order 

### to determine its

### jurisdiction over 

### plaintiff ssuit,

### this court must presume 

### all factual allegations 

### in the complaint to be true and construe 

### all reasonable inferences 

### in favor

### ofthe 

### plaintiff. Scheuer v. 

### Rhodes,416U.S.232, 236 (1974), abrogated on other grounds by 

### Harlow v. 

### Fitzgerald,4sT U.S. 800, 814-15 (1982); Reynolds v.

### Army &

### Air Force Exch. 

### Sem.,846F.2d746,747 (Fed.

### Cir. 1988). However, 

### plaintiffbears the burden

### ofestablishing subject matter

### jurisdiction, Alder Terrace, 

### Inc. v. United 

### States,16l F.3d 1372, 1377 

### (Fed. 

### Cir. 1998) 

### (citingMcNuttv, Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. of

### lnd.,298 U.S. 178,189 (1936)), and must do so by a preponderance 

### ofthe evidence, 

### Reynolds,846

F.2d at 748 

### (citations 

### omitted). 

### Ifjurisdiction is found to be 

### lacking,this court must dismiss the

### action. RCFC 

### l2(hX3).
TheTucker 

### Act delineates 

### this court's

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

### $ 1491 

### (2012). That statute 

### "confersjurisdiction upon the Court 

### ofFederal Claims over the specified categories 

### of actions brought against the 

### United States

. . .

## ." Fisher v. United 

### States,402 F.3d 1167,

## ll72 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2005) (en banc) 

### (citations 

### omitted). These include money damages claims against the federal government founded uponthe 

### Constitution, an act

### of Congress, a regulation promulgated by an executive department, any express or 

### implied contract

### with the 

### United States, or any 

### claim for liquidated or 

### unliquidated damages in cases not sounding 

### intort. Id. 

### (citing 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 1a91(a)(1)).

The Tucker 

### Act concurrently "waives the 

### Govemment's sovereign 

### immunity for those 

### actions." 

## Id. The statute does not, however, create a substantive cause 

### of action or 

### right to recover money damages in the Court 

### of Federal 

### Claims. 

## Id. "lTlo come

### within the

### jurisdictional reach andthe

### waiver

### of the Tucker 

### Act, a

### plaintiff must 

### identifr a separate source 

### of substantive law that creates the 

### right to money damages." Id.


### In otherwords, the source 

### underlying the cause 

### of action must be money-mandating, 

### in that 

### it "'can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Govemment

. . .

# ."' United Statesv. Testan, 424 

### U.5.392,400 (1976) (quoting 

### Eastport S.S. Corp. 

### v. United 

### States,372F.2d 1002, 1009 (Ct. Cl. 1967) and 

### citing Mosca

### v. United 

### States,4lT F.2d 1382, 1386 (Ct. 

### Cl. 

### 1969). 

## If the 

### provision relied upon isfound to be money-mandating, the 

### plaintiff need 

### not rely upon a

### waiver of sovereign 

### immunity beyond the

### Tucker 

### Act. Huston v. 

### UnitedStates,956F.2d259,26l (Fed. 

### Cir. 1992)(citingUnitedStatesv, Mitchell, 463 U.S. 

### 206,218 

### (1983). If, on the other hand, no money-mandating source supports the cause 

### ofaction, this court lacks subj ect matter

### jurisdiction and must dismiss the action. 

# III. Workers' Compensation Benefits 

### Claim
As defendant argues, adenial 

### of workers' compensation benefits by the Department 

### of Labor's OWCP is not subject to 

### review in 

### this 

### court. Def.'s Mot. at

### 4-5. Defendant relies 

### in large part on 

### Gallov. United States,,76Fed. 

### Cl. 593



### (2007),aff'd,529 F.3d 1345 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2008), 

### for its analysis 

### ofrelevant statutes and other

### authorities. 

### Plaintiff makes no attempt to refute theseauthorities, and the court agrees 

### with the 

### holding in Gallo thatthis court "lacks

### jurisdiction over claims 

### which questionthe Secretary's discretionary 

### judgment regarding

. . . whether a 

### [workplace

### disability] claim warrants 

### compensation." 

### Id. at 608 

### (citation 

### omitted). For this reason, the claim that appears to bethe central focus

### of the

### pro se

### complaint before the court must be dismissed. 

# IV. DiscriminationClaim Although 

### it is not 

### entirely clearfrom the complaint, 

### plaintiff appears to allege that the denials 

### ofhis applications 

### for 

### disability benefits were the result

### of discrimination on the part 

### of various federal agencies. Compl. 

### at

## l-2. Mr. Gibson invokes 42 U.S.C. 

### $ 1983 (2006) and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the 

### United States 

### Constitution asgrounds

### for 

### relieffrom 

### discrimination. Compl. at

### 2. This court cannot adjudicate claims based onthe 

### constitutional provisions cited by 

### plaintiff because they are not money-mandattng. See 

### Brown v. United Srates, 105 F.3d 621, 623-24 (Fed. 

### Cir. I997) 

### (holding that the Fourth Amendment is not money-mandating); LeBlanc 

### v. United States, 50 

### F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 

### (holding that the Fourteenth Amendment is not money-mandating). Furthermore, this court cannot entertain claims based on section 1983 because such claims must be brought in a

### district court, not this court.a See, e.g., Trevino v. United States, 1

### l3 Fed. Cl. 204, 209 (2013) 

### (citation 

### omitted). Because this court lacks

### jurisdiction over 

### plaintiff s

### discrimination claim, that 

### claim must be dismissed. 

# V. Injunctive or Declaratory 

### Relief
Plaintiff also appears 

### to seek 

### injunctive anddeclaratory 

### relieffrom this 

### court. Compl. at

### 2. This court does not possess equitable powersthat 

### could

a/ The district court hastwice rejectedthis discrimination claim. See Gibson v.Army Corps ofEngineers St, Louis, No.4:13-cv-01676-HEA,20I3 WL 6161120 (E.D. Mo. Nov.25, 20l3) (rejecting complaint filed Aug. 26,2013 which invoked the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and section 1983); Gibsonv. Social Sec. Admin.,No.4:13-cv-01417-HEA,2013 WL 3941386 (E.D. Mo. July 31, 2013) (rejecting complaint filed July 19,2013which invoked the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and section 1983).conceivably assist 

### plaintiff. See, e.g., 

### Brown, 105 F.3d at 624 

### (statingthat such

demands 

### "for declaratory or 

### injunctive 

### relief[] are also outside the

### jurisdiction 

### of the Court 

### of Federal 

### Claims"). For this reason, the court must dismiss any and

### all requests

### for injunctive or declaratory 

### relief in the complaint. 

# VI. Collateral Attack on the 

### Judgments of a 

### District Court
In 

### plaintiff sopposition 

### brief 

### Mr. Gibson apparently seeks 

### relief from what heterms the 

### "void judgments" of the 

### district court 

### which dismissed 

### similar, 

### if not 

### identical, 

### disability benefits claims 

### for lack

### ofjurisdiction. ,See 

### Pl.'s Opp. at2-6. 

### This court does not possess

### jurisdiction to 

### review decisions

### of federal 

### district 

### courts. .See, e.g.,Joshua

### v. United States 

### , 17 F .3d 378, 380 (Fed. 

### Cir. I994) (stating that 

### "the Court 

### of Federal Claims does not have

### jurisdiction to review the decisions 

### of district 

### courts"). To the extent that 

### Mr. Gibson's suit 

### in this court attempts to 

### collaterally attack other court decisions, any such claim must be dismissed 

### for lack 

### ofjurisdiction. 

# VII. Denials 

### of Other Federal Benefits
The 

### complaintvaguely alludes 

### to denials

### of other

### disability benefits by federal agencies. See

### Compl. at 1

### (listing agenciesthat 

### "collectively

. . .den[ied] 

### applicant's application benefit entitlements to 

### disability retirement (sic)). Attached to the 

### complaint in an unpaginated and unindexed appendix are a

### variety 

### of communications 

### from federal agencies, along

### with various medical 

### records. To the extent that 

### plaintiff may be seeking 

### review of denials

### of benefits bythe Social Security 

### Administration and/or the Department 

### of Veterans 

### Affairs, the court does not possess

### jurisdiction over such

### claims. See

### Marcus v. Uniled States, 909 F.2d 1470, 

### I47l (Fed. 

### Cir. 1990) 

### (holding that 

### this court has no

### jurisdiction over claims contesting the denial 

### ofSocial Security 

### disability benefits) 

### (citations omitted); Pope 

### v. United States,77 Fed.

### Cl.737,740 (2007) 

### (holding that

### this court has no 

### jurisdiction over claims contesting the denial 

### ofveterans' disability benefits) 

### (citations 

### omitted). Thus, to the extent that the 

### complaint could be construed to contest the denial 

### offederal disability benefits by the Social Security 

### Administration andlor the Department 

### of Veterans 

### Affairs, these claims,too, must be dismissed 

### for lack 

### of subiect matter 

### iurisdiction. 

### CONCLUSION

### This court lacks

### jurisdiction over the claims 

### in the 

### complaint 

### filed by

|

. ..^-a 

### plaintiff.' Accordingly, 

### it is hereby

### ORDERED that (1) Defendant's 

### Motion to Dismiss, 

### filed November 

### 12,2003,is 

### GRANTED;
The 

### Clerk's office is directed to 

### DISMISS the

### complaint

### for lack

### of subject matter

### jurisdiction, without prejudice; and


### No costs. (3)

5/ Transfer of plaintiff scomplaint to another federal court would not be in the interest

### of justice. Substantially simiiar, if not identical, claims have been twice rejected by the United States District Court for the Eastem District of Missouri. (2)

J. BUS or Judge