# ORIOIt'|AI.

lln f0,llt @nf

# te! $ltuttr

# t ourt of

# fpf ersl @tsims
No. l4-362 C 

### This Opinion 

### Will Not Be 

### Published 

### in the U,S, 

### Court of Federal Claims 

### Reporter Because 

## It Does 

### Not 

### Add Significantly to the 

### Body of 

### Law.



### (Fited: May 8,2014) 

# FILED JARVIS SIM WOLFE,



### Plaintiff, 

## MAY 8 2014 U.S. COURT OF 

### FEDGRALCI.AF 

### I'HE LINITED STA'I'ES, Defendant.



### OPINION and 

### ORDER

On

### April 24,2014, 

### plaintiff, Jarvis Sim 

### Wolfe, 

### filed a

### complaint inwhich he asked

### this court to 

### review a

### complaint that 

### plaintiff allegedly haspending before the 

### Mississippi Commission 

### of Judicial 

### Performancc. The latter 

### complaint appears

### to addressvarious matters 

### involving the handling 

### of 

### plaintiff s

### criminal case 

### bythe Mississippi state

### courts. No further 

### reliefis requested. This court is solemnly obliged, on its own accord, to address obvious questions conceming its subject matter

### jurisdiction. See 

### Mitchell v. 

### Maurer,293 U.S.

### 237,244 

### (1934). This court recognizes that 

### plaintiff is acling 

### pro se before this court, and thus the court 

### will hold the 

### form 

### of plaintifl's submissions 

### to a less stringent standard thanthose drafted 

### by an

### attorney. See Reed v. United 

### States,23 

### Cl.Ct.517,521 (1991) 

### (citing Estelle v. 

### Gamble,429 U.S. 97

### (1976)). Having reviewed 

### plaintifls complaint, this 

### court is certain that 

### it lacks

### jurisdiction to considerthe 

### claim that 

### plaintiff raises. 

### With very 

### limited exceptions, the

### jurisdictional statutes governing the 

### United States 

### Court ol'Federal CIaims grant 

### authority to the court only to issuejudgments 

### for money against the 

### United Slates andthen, 

### only when they aregrounded 

### in a contract, a money-mandating statute, or the 

### lakings clause 

### of the 

### Fillh Amendment. See United States v. 

### Testan,424 

### U.5.392,397 -98 

### (1976);28 U,S.C. $ 

### 1491. This court lacks 

### jurisdiction to entertain general 

### civil rights claims that are not based upon anappropriate money-mandating 

### provision. See, e.g., Sandersv. 

### United Stares,34 Fcd.

### Cl. 75, 80 (1995), 

### afi'd,104 F.3d 376 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1996),

### cert.denied,522 U.S. 831

### (1997); Martinez v. IJnited 

### States,26 

### Cl. Ct. 1471,1476 (1992), 

### aff'd,1.1F.3d 1069 (Fed. 

### Cir.

I

## 993). It also does not have

### jurisdiction to 

### review decisions rendered 

### by state 

### courts. See 

### Potter v. Unired 

### States,108 Fed. 

### Cl. 544,547-48 (2013); Hernandez 

### v. United States, 96 Fed. 

### Cl. 195, 203 

### (2010). Nor does 

### it otherwise hear claims 

### involving state

### officials. See 28 

### U.S.C. $1491; Shew/blt

### v. United 

### States,104 F.3d 1333, 1337-38 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1997); 

### Harrison v. United Stares, 2014 

### WL 1006181, at

### *1 (Fed. 

### Cl. 

### March 12,2014). Accordingly, the 

### Clerk shall dismiss 

### plaintilf s

### complaint for lack

### ofjurisdiction. 

### IT IS SO

### ORDERXD.