# 0R[&[NAl.

lJntbe @niteb 

# btates @ourt of

# JfeDersl @lsims No. l5-1486C 

### (Filed: December 23. 201 5) 

### NOT FOR 

### PUBLICATION 

# FILED t)EC 2

### 3 2015 U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS 

### MILTON THOMAS WALTON,

Plaintiff,

THE LJNITED 

### STATES, Pro Se 

### Complaint; Sua Sponte Dismissal 

### for Lack 

### of Subject 

### Matter Jurisdiction under 

### RCFC 12(hX3); 

### Not in Interest 

### ofJustice to Transfer Under 28 

### u.s.c. $ 1631.
Defendant.



### Milton Thomas 

### Walton, Lexington, OK, pro se. 

### ORDER

### AND ORDER OF 

### DISMISSAL CAMPBELL-SMITH, Chief Judge
On December 8,2015,

### plaintiff in the above-captioned case, 

### Mr. Milton Thomas 

### Walton, appearing 

## p4je, filed a

### complaint in this court "pursuant to 28 

### USCA $ 1491 

### Medical Malpractice." ECF 

### No. 

### 1. On that same date, 

### plaintiff filed an application to appear 

### in forma pauperis, seeking permission to proceed 

### without paying the 

### court's

### filing fee. ECF 

### No. 3.
Forthe reasons explained more

### fully below, the court 

### GRANTS the IFP 

### application andfinds 

### that 

### it lacks

### jurisdiction over 

### Mr. Walton's 

### complaint. The court 

### further finds that 

### it is not in the interest 

### ofjustice totransfer the 

### complaintto a

### district 

### court. Accordingly, the court sua sponte 

### DISMISSES 

### plaintiff s

### complaint for lack 

### of jurisdiction pursuant to 

### Rule 12(h)(3) 

### ofthe Rules 

### ofthe United States Court 

### ofFederal Claims (RCFC). 

# I. Plaintiff s

### Application to Proceed 

### In Forma Pauperis 

### With his 

### complaint, 

### Mr. Walton also 

### filed an application to proceed 

### in forma pauperis 

### (IFP). Appl. IFP, Dec. 8,2015, ECF 

### No.

### 3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 1915, a 

### "court of the 

### United States" is permitted to

### waive

### filing fees and security under certain

### circumstances.r See 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 

### l9l5(aX1). As explained by thewebsite maintained 

### by

the court regarding pro se 

### information, 

### "in forma pauoeris" is defined as 

### "[p]ermission to sue 

### without prepayment 

### offees, given bythe court to a person 

### who does not have 

### financial means to

### pay." See Pro Se 

### Information, http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/pro-se

### information (last

### visited Dec.

### 22,2015). 

### Mr. Walton's application consisted 

### of a 

### motion, an

### affidavit affirming that he has no accessto assets, and his prison account statement dating back to 

### May 

### 24,2015. Id. 

### Mr. Walton is a prisoner 

### of the 

### Lexington Correctional Center in 

### Lexington, Oklahoma. See

### Appl. IFP 1.2 

### A prisoner 

### who brings suit 

### in afederal court is subject to a

### limitation on proceeding 

### in forma 

### pauperis-commonly known asthe "three strikes 

### rule."
In no event shall a prisoner 

### bring a

### civil action or appeal a

### judgment in a 

### civil action or proceeding under this section 

### if the prisoner has, on 3

### or more 

### prior occasions, 

### while incarcerated 

### or detained in any

### facility, brought
an action 

### or appeal 

### in acourt 

### of the 

### United Statesthat was dismissed onthe grounds that 

### it is

### frivolous, malicious, or

### failsto state a

### claim upon 

### which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under 

### imminent danger 

## of serious 

### physical injury.
28 

### U.S.C. $ 

### 1915(9)(2012). On 

### review,the court does 

### notfind any 

### civil action brought by 

### Mr. Walton in forma pauperis that was dismissed on the ground that 

### it was 

### frivolous, malicious, orfailedto state a

### claim upon 

### which relief may be 

### granted' Thus, 

### Mr. Walton is not precluded 

### from requesting that the

### filing fee bewaived.


### As of November 9, 2015, 

### Mr. Walton's only assets amounted 

### to $315.34, the sum 

### in his prison account 

### largely accumulated 

### from 

### gifts. Appl' IFP, 1,

## 4' The court concludes that 

### Mr. Walton does not have 

### sufficient resources to 

### satis$ the 

### court's 

### filing fee. 

### "[A]lthough [a] 

### litigant need not be absolutely destitute, granting IFP status calls

### for showing that 

### payingfor the costs

### of the suit

### would make 

### it 

### difficult to 

### afford the 'bastc necessities 

### of

## life."' See 

### Murphy v. 

### United States, 

### No. 14-536C, 2014

### WL 3510222, at *

### I n.1 (Fed. 

### Cl.

### July 16,2014) (quoting 

### Williams v. Court Servs. 

### & Offender Supervision 

### Agency for D.C., 878 

### F. Supp. 2d 

### 263,266 

### (D.D.C.2012)), recons. denied' 

### No. 14-536C, 2014

### WL 3841874 (2014). 

# I The Court ofFederal Claims, while not generally considered to be a "court 

### ofthe United States"

### within the meaning of 

### Title 28 the United States Code, is deemedto be a ,,court 

### ofthe United States"for purposes ofthis statute, andthus has

### jurisdiction to grant or deny IFP applications. See 28 U.S.C. S2503(d) (deeming theCourt of Federal Claims to be "a court 

### ofthe United States"for the purposes 

### of28 U.S.C' S 1915). 

# 2 A prisoner is defined as 

### "any person incarcerated

. . .

### in any

### facility who is

. . . convicted ofl, 

### [and] sentenced

### for.

. .

### violations 

### of criminal 

### law." 28 U.S.C. $ 1915(h).

### Having made the requisite showing, 

### Mr. Walton's IFP 

### application is 

### GRANTED. 

# II. Legal Standards 

# A. Evaluating Subject 

### MatterJurisdiction 

### "subjecrmatterjurisdiction may be challenged at any 

### time by the parties or by the courr sua

### sponte." Folden v. 

### United States 

### ,379 F

### .3d 1344, 1354 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2004) 

### (citing Fanning. 

### Phillips 

### & Molnar v. West, 160 F.3d 7 17, 720 (Fed.

### Cir. I

### 998)); seealso 

### Metabolite Labs. Inc. 

### v. Lab. 

### Com. of Am. 

### Holdings,370 F.3d 1354, 1369 (Fed. 

### Cir' 2004) 

### ("Subject matter

### jurisdiction is an

### inquiry that 

### this court must raise sua sponte, evenwhere, as here, neither party has raised this 

### issue."). 

### "In deciding whether there is subject-matter 

### jurisdiction, "the allegations stated in the 

### complaint aretaken astrue and 

### jurisdiction is decided on the face 

### of the 

### pleadings."' Folden, 379 F.3d at 1354 

### (quoting Shearin v. 

### United States,992F.2d 1195, 

### 1195-96 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1993)). Complaints 

### filed by pro se 

### plaintiffs are often held to "less stringent standards than 

### formal pleadings drafted 

### by 

### lawyers." Hainesv. 

### Kemer, 404 U.S. 

### 519' 520 (1972); see 

### Vaizburd v. United States, 384 

### F.3d 1278, 1285 n.8 (Fed. 

### Cir.2004) (stating that pleadings drafted by 

### pro se parties 

### "should

. . .not be held tothe same standard as [pleadings drafted 

### by] parties represented 

### by 

### counsel"). However, 

### pro se 

### plaintiffs must 

### siill meet

### jurisdictional requirements. Bernard v. 

### United States, 59 Fed. 

### Cl. 497,499 (2004), 

### affd, 98 F.

### App'x 860 (Fed. 

### Cir.2004); see also 

### Kelley 

### v' Dep't 

### ofLabor, 812 

### F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed.

### Cir. 1987) 

### ("[A] court may not 

### similarly take a 

### liberalview 

### of [a] 

### jurisdictional requirement and set a

### different rulefor pro se

### litigants 

### only."). If the court determines that 

### it does not have subject matter

### jurisdiction, it must dismiss the claim. Rules of the 

### United States Court 

### of Federal Claims 

### (RCFC) 12(h)(3).
TheTucker 

### Act provides 

### for this court's

### jurisdiction over 

### "any claim against the 

### United States founded either uponthe 

### Constitution, or any

### Act of Congress or any regulation 

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

### implied contract

### with the 

### United States, 

### orfor liquidated or 

### unliquidated damages 

### in cases not sounding in

### tort." 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1a91(a)(l) (2012) (emphasis 

### added). 

### A 

### plaintiff must 

### "identiff a substantive 

### right for money damages against the 

### United States separate 

### from the Tucker 

### Act 

### itself' foi the court

### to exercise

### jurisdiction over a

### claim. Todd v. 

### United States' 386 

### F.3d 1091' 1094 (Fed. 

### Cir.2004). The substantive source 

### of law allegedly 

### violated must 

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

### Govemment."' United States v. Navajo 

### Nation, 556 

### U.S. 28'7,290 (2009) 

### (quoting United States

### v' Testan,424 U 'S'

### 392, 400 (1976)).B. Discussion



### As set

### forth below, 

### plaintiff s

### complaint must be dismissed

### for lack 

### of subject matter

### jurisdiction pursuant to 

### RCFC 12(hX3), and the court 

### finds that atransfer

## of plaintiff scaseto another federal court is not appropriate.



# 1. The Court Does 

### Not Have

### Jurisdiction Over 

### Plaintiff sClaims 

### Plaintiffs "tort ctaim 

### of medical malpractice 

### for negligence and or breach 

### of contract" falls outside

### this court's

### jurisdiction. Pl.'s 

### Compl. 1; 28 

### U.S.C. $ 

### la91(aXl). Plaintiff sdemand 

### for compensation is based on allegations that a 

### Dr. Charles 

### R' Kuhn, a 

### Major in the 

### United States 

### Air Force, performed a

### different surgery on 

### Mr. Walton than what 

### Mr. Walton had requested. 

### Pl.'s Compl. passim. 

### With his complaint, 

### Mr. Walton also submitted acopy 

### of a

### July 17,2015 decision 

### of the Board 

### of Veteran's Appeals (The 

### Board). Pl.'s 

### Compl. 

### l0-13. The Board determined that although no service treatment records 

### ofany surgerywere available, there was

### sufficient evidence to show that 

### Mr. Walton underwent surgery based on later 

### physical examination records and the existence 

### of a

### military travel order showing 

### Mr. Walton was transferred

### to a hospital nearthe alleged date

### of his 

### surgery. Pl.'s Complaint 12 

### (" I'he Board thus finds that the evidence 

### wcighs in t'avor 

### of a 

### linding that the Veteran underwent surgery on the base 

### of his penis 

### while in service, and any residuals

### of that stlrgery are therefore 

### eligible fbr service 

### connection."). The Board remanded 

### Mr. Walton's case to the Department 

### of Veterans 

### Affairs Regional 

### Office in Muskogee, Oklahoma, 

### ibr further 

### proceedings. 

### Mr. Walton states that he

### filed a

### clairn in this court because he believes that 

### "the [Veteran's 

### Affairs] compensation 

### clairnwas

### filed erroneously 

### ...and ...that the 

### claim on 

### rcvicw 

### will be denied again in the

### final analysis." Pl.'s Compl. 13. 

### Mr. Walton seelns to argue that upon his 

### revieu'of the records produced

### while his 

### claim rvas on appeal. he now has a

### claim 

### for Medical Malpractice fbr consideration by this 

### court. 

## Id. Plaintiff "invokes 

### jurisdiction under, 

### (28

### $

## l49l) Medical Malpractice." Pl.'s Compl. 

### 1. But, 

### plaintiff s

### claim sounds in 

### tort, see

### Zhengxins v. United States, 

### 7l Fed. 

### Cl. 732,739 (2006), 

### affd, 204 F.

### App'x 885 (Fed. 

### Cir' 2006), and the Tucker 

### Act plainly excludes 

### tort claims lrom the court's

### jurisdiction, 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1491(a)(l); Keene Corp. v. 

### United States, 508 U.S. 

### 200,214 (1993). 

### Accordingly, 

### plaintiff s

### complaint must be dismissed pursuant to 

### RCFC 12(hX3) 

### for lack 

### of subject matter

### jurisdiction.



# 2. Transfer of the Caseto 

### Another Court Is 

### Not Appropriate
The court 

### now considers whether 

### "it is 

### in the interest 

### ofjustice" to transfer 

### plaintiff s

### complaintto another court of the 

### United States under 28 

### U.S'C. $ 

### 1631' See Tex. Peanut Farmers 

### v. United States, 409 

### F.3d 

### 1370,137415 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2005) (statingthat the 

### Court of Federal Claims should considerwhether transfer is appropriate oncethe

court has determined that 

### it lacks

### jurisdiction). Section 163 

### I states 

### in pertinent part: Whenever a

### civil action 

### isfiled 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 acourt and that court finds that there is awant 

### ofjurisdiction, the 

### court shall, 

## if it is 

### in the interest 

### ofjustice, transfer such action 

### or appeal 

### to any other such 

### court in which the action 

### or appeal could have been brought.

. . . 28 

### U.S.C. $ 163 

### l;see 28 

### U.S.C. $610 

### (defining courts as 

### "courts

### of appeals and

### district courts of the 

### United States, the 

### United States 

### District Court for the 

### District of the Canal Zone, the 

### District Court of Guam, the 

### District Court 

### of the

### Virgin Islands,the United States Court 

### of Federal Claims, andthe 

### Court of Intemational

### Trade"). "The phrase 

## 'if it is in the interest 

### ofjustice' relates to claims 

### which are 

### nonfrivolous and as such should be decided onthe 

### merits." Gallowav Farms. Inc. 

### v. United States,834F.2d 998, 1000 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1987); see 

### id. (stating that 

### "[f]rivolous claims 

### include 'spurious and specious 

### arguments"' (quoting Devices 

### for Med.. 

### Inc.v. 

### Boehl,822F.2d 1062, 1068 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1987)).

### "A decision totransfer rests 

### within the sound discretion 

### of thetransferor court, and the court may decline to transfer the case

## '[i]f such transfer 

### would nevertheless be 

### futile given the weakness of 

### plaintiff s caseonthe 

### merits."' Spencer

### v. United States, 98 Fed. 

### C|.349,359 (2011) (alteration 

### in original) (quoting Faulkner 

### v. United States, 43 Fed. 

### Cl. 54, 56 

### (1999). "The basic test

...

### for determining 

## ifa case should be transferred is whether 

### itwould be 

### in 'the interest

### ofjustice' to do

### so." Busby School of 

### N. Cheyenne 

### Tribe v. 

### united states, 8

## cl. ct. 588, 595 (1985).
Because 

### Mr. Walton has 

### previously brought his claim to the Department 

### of Vctcrans 

### Affairs, sc<:supra Part 

### II.B.1, andthc appeal 

### ofthat claim appears to be ongoing. 

### it is 

### not in the interest 

### of.justiceto transl-er this cascto another venue 

### for duplicative proceedings.3 Thus,transfer 

### of this case is not appropriate. 

# III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons,the court 

### GRANTS the IFP 

### application and finds that 

### it lacks

### jurisdiction over 

### plaintiff s claims.The Clerk 

## of Court 

### is directed

### to DISMISS 

### plaintifls complaint 

### for lack of

### jurisdiction. The 

### Clerk 

### of Court

### will enter 

### judgment 

### for defendant. No costs. 

# ' The current status 

### of 

### Mr. Walton's Veterans' 

### Affairs claim is 

### unknown as the most recent 

### information orovided bv 

### Mr. Walton is

### from Julv 

### 2015. See 

### Pl.'s Comol. 

### l0-13.

### IT IS SO 

### ORDERED.



### ATRICIA E. 

### CAMPB ChiefJudge