# ORIGIttAT

lJrtW @nito!

# $rtttts

# tourt of

# /r[rru[ [,luimg

No. l4-390C (Filed: 

### May 16,2014) 

### *:i*** **r.** *++** 

### *** *t * '1.,t*

### *** *** ++*

## ******

THE T]NITED STATES, 

# FILED

MAY

## 16 2014 

# ,'di8l'-'Sh?'f;' WILLIAM H. SEALS-BEY, a.rkla

### WILLIAM H. BROOKS.



### Plaintiff, 

# * Pro Se 

### Plaintiff; Dismissal 

### for Lack 

### of



# * Jurisdiction; Application to Proceed 

### In 

# * Forma Pauperis



# Defendant. *

,t* * * * :t *,1. * * *t * :f* * :t* {.'t * * *,1.'},t't *'} **'* :}* rr* * * +


### William H. Seals-Bev. a,/k/a

### William H. 

### Brooks, Washington, 

### DC, pro se. 

### OPINION AND ORDER SWEENEY, Judge

On 

### May 6, 2014, 

### plaintiff in the above-captioned case, appearing p1q se,

### filed a

### complaint and an

### application 10 proceed 

### in forma pauperis. 

### Plaintiff, who is 

### currently incarcerated 

### in Pine 

### Knot, Kentucky, contends that he has suffered 

### "unjust conviction and 

### imprisonment." Compl. 

## l. He alleges that the 

### indictment thatwas

### filed against 

### him in the Superior Court 

### of the 

### District

### of Columbia was 

### "transferred" to the 

### United States 

### District Court for the 

### District of 

### Columbia. Id. 

### Plaintiff claims that this alleged 

### "transfer" was 

### invalid, and that his 

### conviction should have therefore been

### dismissed. 

### Id. He furrher alleges thatthe govemment engaged 

### in prosecutorial misconduct, 

### fabrication ofevidence, and coercion 

### of witnesses when prosecuting 

### him. Ld.at 4. 

### Plaintiff statesthat his 

### Fifth and 

### Sixth Amendment rights have been

### violated, that he has been deprived 

### ofhis rights 

### to due process and 

### to a speedy

### trial, and that he has been targeted 

### with intentional 

### infliction of emotional 

### distress. 

### Id. This court lacks

### jurisdiction to entertain 

### plaintiff sclaims and must therefore dismiss his complaint.

Whether the court has

### jurisdiction to decide the merits 

### of a case is athreshold matter. See Steel Co.

### v. Citizens 

### for a Better 

### Env't, 523 

### U.S. 83,94-95 

### (1998). "Without 

### jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at

### all in any cause. 

### Jurisdiction is power 

### to declare the 

### law, and when 

### it
ceases

### to exist, the 

### only function remaining to the court is that 

### ofannouncing thefact and dismissing the 

### cause," Ex parte 

### McCardle, 74 U.S. (7

### Wall.) 506, 514 

### (1868). The parties or the 

### couft on its 

### own 

### initiative may challenge the existence 

### of subject matter

### jurisdiction at any time. Folden 

### v. United Srales,379 

### F.3d 1344, 

### l3S4 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2004).Further, the

### ability 

### ofthe United States Court 

### ofFederal Claims 

### ("Court ofFederal

Claims") to entertain suits against the 

### United States is 

### limited. "The United States, as sovereign, is immune 

### from suit save as 

### it consents 

### to be

### sued." United States 

### v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584,

586 ( I

### 941). The

### waiver of 

### immunity "cannot be 

### implied but must be 

### unequivocally expressed." 

### United States v. 

### King, 395 

### U.S. 

## l,4 (1969). The Tucker 

### Act, the 

### principal statute governing the 

### jurisdiction of this court, waives sovereign 

### immunity for claims against the 

### United States 

### not sounding in

### tort that are founded uponthe 

### United States 

### Constitution, afederal statute or regulation, or an express or 

### implied contract 

### with the 

### United States. 28 

### U.S.C. $ 

### 1a91(a)(l) 

### (2006). However, theTucker 

### Act is merely a

### jurisdictional statute and "does not create any substantive 

### right enforceable against the 

### United States 

### for money 

### damages." United States v. 

### Testan,424 U.S. 392,398 

### (1976). The substantive 

### right must appear 

### in another source 

### of law, such as a 

### "money-mandating constitutional provision, statute or 

### regulation that has been

### violated, or an express 

### or implied contract 

### with the 

### United States." Loveladies 

### Harbor. Inc. v. 

### United States, 27 

### F.3d 1545, 1554 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1994) 

### (enbanc).

Inthis case, 

### plaintiffdoes not allege any claims based on a contract 

### with the 

### United States or a money-mandating 

### constirutional provision, federal statute, or federal regulation. 

### While the court has

### jurisdiction over takings claims arising underthe 

### Fifth Amendment, 

### plaintiff does not allege ataking 

### here. See,9g., 

### Allicock v. 

### United States,2012 

### WL 5995245,

# *l (Fed. 

### Cl. 

### Nov.

### 29,2012). The court also does not have

### jurisdiction to hear

### plaintiff s

### Sixth Amendment 

### claims. Dupre 

### v. United States,229 

### Cr.CL.706,706 (1981) (per

### curiam). Further, becausethe court lacks

### jurisdiction to hear claims sounding 

### in tort, 

### itwould not be able to enteriain 

### plaintiffs claim of intentional 

### infliction of emotional distress. 28 

### U.S.C. $

### lagl(a)(l); DuWe,229 

### Ct.Cl.at706. Plaintiffalso asserts that he has been subjected 

### to due process 

### violations, but the court lacks

### jurisdiction over such claims, as

### well. smith v. 

### united States, 709 F. 

### 3d I I 14, 1116 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2013) 

### (holding thatthe Court 

### ofFederal Claims lacks 

### jurisdiction to hear claims 

### for due process 

### violations under the 

### Fifth Amendment); LeBlanc v. 

### united states, 50 

### F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed.

### Cir. 1995) 

### ("[T]he Due Process Clauses 

### ofthe Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments

. . . [are 

### not] a

### sufficient basis for

### jurisdiction because they do not mandate payment 

### of money by the 

### govemment."). 

### Additionally, 

### plaintiff alleges that he has been deprived 

### of his rights pursuantto the Speedy 

### Trial Act, and that his 

### conviction involved prosecutorial misconduct, 

### fabrication

### of evidence, and coercion 

### ofwitnesses. 

### compl.4. However, 

### "[t]he court of Federal

### claims does not have the 

### power

. . .

### to review in detail thefacts surrounding a

### conviction or imprisonment." Zakiya v. United States, 79 Fed. 

### C|.231,234-35 (2007), 

### affd, 277 

### F.App'x 985 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2008) (per 

### curiam). Indeed, the court possesses no

### jurisdiction whatsoever over 

### criminal matters. Joshua

### v. 

### united states,17 

### F.3d378,379 (Fed. 

## cir. 1994); 

### Kaniav. 

### united states,650 

### F.2d264,268 (Ct.

### Cl. 1981) 

### (notingthat 

### "the role of the

### judiciary in the 

### high function 

### of enforcing and 

### policing the

### criminal law is assigned to the courts 

### of general

### jurisdiction and not to this 

### court"). Moreover, this court does not have

### jurisdiction to 

### review the decisions 

### of district 

### courts. vereda. Ltd. v. United States,271 F

### .3d 1367, 1375 (Fed.

### cir. 2001). The proper 

### forum for resolving such issues is the 

### district court in 

### which they arose, or the appellate 

### c;urt that reviews the 

### district court's decisions. See, 

### gg., united States 

### v. Rojas-contreras 

### ,474 

### u.s.231, 233-34 (1985) (discussing a defendant's attempts tovindicate his rights underthe Speedy 

### Trial

### Act before the

### trial court, the appellate court, and 

### finally the Supreme 

### Court). Consequently, 

### all

of

### plaintiff sclaims 

### fail for a lack 

### ofjurisdiction.
Finally, 

### plaintifffiled, concunent 

### with his 

### complaint, an application 

### to proceed 

### in forma pauperis. Pursuant to 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1915, courts 

### of the 

### United States are 

### permittedtowaive

### filing fees and security under certain 

### circumstances.r See 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1915(a)(1); see also Haves v. 

### United States, 71 Fed. 

### Cl. 366,366-67 (2006) 

### (concluding thar 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 1915(a)(1) applies

### to both prisoners and nonprisoners 

### alike). Plaintiffs wishing to proceed 

### in forma pauperis must submit an

### affidavit that lists 

### all

### oftheir assets, declares thatthey are unable

### to pay the fees 

### or give the security, and states the nature

### ofthe action and

### their 

### beliefthat they areentitled to redress. 28 

### U.S.C. $ 

### 1915(a)(l). Further, prisoners must

### file "a 

### certified copy 

### ofthe trustfund account statement 

### (or institutional equivalent) 

### for the prisoner 

### for the 

### 6-month period immediately preceding the

### filing of the

### complaint.

. .obtained 

### from the appropriate 

### official 

### of each prison 

### which the prisoner is or was 

### confined." Id. $ 1915(a)(2).


### Plaintiffhas substantially satisfied the requirements set

### forth 

### in section 

### l9l5(a). The court therefore grants 

### plaintiffs application 

### to proceed 

### in forma 

### p4gpg{g and waives 

### plaintiffs prepayment 

### ofthefiling fee. Notwithstanding the 

### court's waiver, prisoners seeking to proceed 

### in forma pauperis are required to pay, over time, the

### filing fee 

### in

## full. ld. $ 1915(b). Thus, 

### plaintiff shall be assessed, as a

### partial payment 

### ofthe court's 

### filing fee, an 

### initial sum 

### of twenty percent

### of the greater

## of(l) 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 

### ofhis complaint. Id. $ 

### 1915(bX1). Thereafter; 

### plaintiff shall be required 

### to make 

### monthly payments

### of twenty percent

### ofthe preceding 

### month's income credited 

### to his 

### account. 

### Id. g 1915(b)(2). The agency 

### having custody

### ofplaintiff shall 

### forward payments

### from 

### plaintiffs account to the 

### Clerk of the Court 

### ofFederal Claims each 

### time the account balance exceeds $10 and 

### until suchtrme as the

### filing fee is paid 

### in

## full. Id.



### In sum, the court 

### GRANTS 

### plaintiff s

### application to proceed 

### in forma pauperis and 

### DISMISSES 

### plaintiff s

### complaint for lack 

### ofjurisdiction. The 

### clerk is directed 

### to enter 

### judgment accordingly.


### IT IS SO 

### ORDERED.



## ' While the Court 

### of Federal

### Claims is 

### not generally considered to be a 

### "court of the 

### United States" 

### within the meaning 

### of

### title twenty-eight ofthe 

### United States Code, the court has 

### jurisdiction to

### gant or deny applications to proceed 

### in forma 

### pauperis, See28 U.S.C. $ 2503(d) (deeming the Court 

### of Federal Claims 

### to be "a court 

### of the 

### United States"

### for the purposes 

### of28 U.S.C. $ 

### l9l5); see also Matthews v. 

### United Stales,72 Fed,.

### C\.274,277 -78 (2006) 

### (recognizing that Congress enacted the Court 

### ofFederal Claims Technical and Procedural Improvements 

### Act 

### of 1992, 

### authorizingthe court to, among otherthings, adjudicate applications to proceed 

### in forma pauperis pursuantto 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1915),