7018 0040 0001 1393 1372 Jfn tbt ffl:niteb is,tates QCourt

of jf eberal QClaints No. 19-1210C (Filed August 29, 2019) NOT FOR PUBLICATION * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * 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 FourteenthAmendment, which he construes as a contractbetween the government and all people. Compl. at 1, 5-6. The allegations in the complaint do not supportjurisdictionin this court. Under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, this court'sjurisdiction is limited to certain actions against the United States seeking money damages which do not sound in tort. The court hasjurisdictionover constitutional claims in limited contexts, namely claimsbased on constitutionalprovisions that mandate the payment of money for their violation

--- such as the Takings Clause ofthe FifthAmendment. 

### 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 FifthAmendment's Takings Clause, but insteadrelies on the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses ofthe FourteenthAmendment. 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 SanFrancisco Arts 

### &Athletics, Inc. u. United States Olympic Comm., 483 U.S. 522, 542 n.21 (1987). To the extentplaintiffis basing his claim on the actions ofstate and local officials, such a claim is not against the federal government and is thus beyond our jurisdiction. 

### SeeAnderson 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 lackjurisdictionover criminallaw claims. 

### Stanwyck u. United States, 127 Fed. Cl. 308, 314 (2016). And to the extent that plaintiffbases his claim on the federal government's failure to investigate his allegations, that is a claim ofnegligence which sounds in tort and is thus outside ourjurisdiction. 

### 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 constitutionis not a contract with the United States, the breach ofwhich canbe heard under our contractjurisdiction. 

### 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 concerningwhich a breach action may be maintained in our court"); 

### Taylor u. United States, 113 Fed. Cl. 171, 173 (2013) (noting that the Constitution cannotbe a valid contractbetween a private citizen and the United States). As explained above, even ifeverythingMr. Steltz alleges is true, our court has not been empoweredby Congress to hear his matter. Accordingly, the complaint is 

### DISMISSED for lack ofsubject-matterjurisdictionpursuantto Rule 12(h)(3) ofthe Rules ofthe United States Court ofFederal Claims. The Clerk shall close the case.

- 2 -

### ITIS SO ORDERED.



### - 3

-