7018 0040 0001 1393 1372

* 

* 

ADAM STELTZ, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

THE UNITED STATES, 

* 

·• 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Defendant. * 

* 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

ORDER 

This case was filed prose on August 14, 2019, by Adam Steltz.t Plaintiff is a 

prisoner in the custody of the state of Oregon, currently a serving a sentence for 

multiple counts of sexual assault. Compl. at 3-5. :Mister Steltz challenges his 

conviction, claiming that his guilty plea was improperly extracted by physical 

abuse. Comp!. at 1-2. Plaintiff claims that he reported this misconduct to the 

United States Department of Justice, but no action was taken. ld. at 5. He claims 

that these actions by state officials, coupled with the inaction of the United States, 

t Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis in this case. That 

application is GRANTED. Notwithstanding the waiver, prisoners seeking to 

proceed in forma pauperis are required to pay, over time, the filing fee in full. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(b), Thus, Mr. Steltz shall be assessed, as a partial payment of the 

court's filing fee, an initial sum of twenty percent of the greater of (1) the average 

monthly deposits into his account, or (2) the average monthly balance in his account 

for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of his complaint. Id. 

§ 1915(b)(l). Thereafter, Mr. Steitz shall be required to make monthly payments of 

twenty percent of the preceding month's income credited to his account. ld. 

§ 1915(b)(2). The agency having custody of Mr. Steitz shall forward payments from 

his account to the Clerk of the Court of Federal Claims each time the account 

balance exceeds $10 and until such time as the filing fee is paid in full. Id. 
violate the United States Constitution --- in particular the Fourteenth Amendment, 

which he construes as a contract between the government and all people. Compl. at 

1, 5-6. 

The allegations in the complaint do not support jurisdiction in this court. 

Under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, this court's jurisdiction is limited to certain 

actions against the United States seeking money damages which do not sound in 

tort. The court has jurisdiction over constitutional claims in limited contexts, 

namely claims based on constitutional provisions that mandate the payment of 

money for their violation --- such as the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 

Preseault u. I.C.C., 494 U.S. 1, 12, (1990). Mister Steltz does not, and could not 

given the allegations in the complaint, rely on the Fifth Amendment's Takings 

Clause, but instead relies on the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 

Fourteenth Amendment. 

That amendment, however, is not money-mandating. See Scott u. United 

States, No. 19-97C, 2019 WL 318452, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 23, 2019) (citing LeBlanc 

u. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). Additionally, that 

amendment applies to the states, not the federal government. See San Francisco 

Arts & Athletics, Inc. u. United States Olympic Comm., 483 U.S. 522, 542 n.21 

(1987). To the extent plaintiff is basing his claim on the actions of state and local 

officials, such a claim is not against the federal government and is thus beyond our 

jurisdiction. See Anderson u. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 330, 331 (Fed. Cl. 2014); 

see also Trevino u. United States, 557 F. App'x 995, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Moreover, 

we lack jurisdiction over criminal law claims. Stanwyck u. United States, 127 Fed. 

Cl. 308, 314 (2016). And to the extent that plaintiff bases his claim on the federal 

government's failure to investigate his allegations, that is a claim of negligence 

which sounds in tort and is thus outside our jurisdiction. See Pollack u. United 

States, No. 11-19 C, 2011 WL 5330313, at *3, 5 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 7, 2011), aff'd, 498 F. 

App'x 19 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Finally, the constitution is not a contract with the United 

States, the breach of which can be heard under our contract jurisdiction. See 

Asmussen u. United States, No. 14-825C, 2015 WL 351611, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 25, 

2015) (holding that the Constitution cannot "be considered an express or implied-infact contract concerning which a breach action may be maintained in our court"); 

Taylor u. United States, 113 Fed. Cl. 171, 173 (2013) (noting that the Constitution 

cannot be a valid contract between a private citizen and the United States). 

As explained above, even if everything Mr. Steltz alleges is true, our court 

has not been empowered by Congress to hear his matter. Accordingly, the 

complaint is DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 

12(h)(3) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims. The Clerk shall 

close the case. 

- 2 -
IT IS SO ORDERED. 

- 3 -