# ORIGIt{AT

lln tbe 

# @niteD 

# $.tates @ourt 

# ot

# Jfelers, 

# Oltig6

No. 14-138C 

### (Filed: March 

### 18,2014) MAR

## I B 2014 U.S' COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS Pro Se; Collateral 

### Attack on 

### Criminal Conviction; Sua Sponte 

### Dismissalfor 

### Lack 

### of Subject 

### Matter Jurisdiction 

## - RCFC 12(h)(3); 

### Not in Interest 

### ofJustice toTransfer under 28 U.S.C. $ 1631. Defendant.

Tramaine Beadles, Pine 

### Knot, 

### KY, pro se. Sarah 

### M. Valenti, 

### Trial Attorney, Commercial 

### Litigation Branch, 

### Civil Division, United States Department 

### of Justice, Washington, 

### DC, for defendant.



### OPINION 

### AND ORDER OF 

### DISMISSAL CAMPBELL-SMITH, Chief Judge 

### Plaintiff Tramaine Beadles brings a

### claim against the 

### United States seeking release

### from his incarceration, the expungement of his 

### criminal record, the retum 

### of his 

### written confession, and money damagesfor 

### wrongful imprisonment, loss of wages, invasion 

### ofprivacy, and emotional distress. For the reasons more

### fully explained below, the Court 

### of Federal Claims lacks 

### jurisdiction over both 

### plaintiff scollateral attack on his 

### criminal conviction and his

### tort 

### claim. Accordingly, the court sua sponte disrnisses

### plaintiff s

### complaint for lack 

### of subject-matter j

### urisdiction. 

# I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff is afederal prisoner housed atthe U.S. Penitentiary 

### McCreary, located 

### in Pine 

### Knot, 

### Kentucky. See 

### Compl. 1., ECF 

### No, 1. Plaintiff brings his claim 

### without counsel. 

### TRAMAINE BEADLES,

Plaintiff,

THE {.JNITED STATES,

### Plaintiff filed a

### complaint on 

### February 18,20141 , in 

### which he claims thatvarious



### employees'of the 

### United Statesviolated his 

### "civil right of privacy/invasion 

### ofprivacy" and engaged 

### in a 

### "grand larceny 

### conspiracy." See id. at3 

### (internal quotation marks and 

### capitalization omitted). 

### Plaintiff s

### claim is based on an incident that occurred 

### in December 2010

### while he was housed at

### CCA Leavenworth.s See 

### id. at

### 3-4. Plaintiff claims that he made an 

### "involuntary confession" to

### two Federal Bureau

### oflnvestigation (FBI) agents regarding acrime about 

### which he had knowledge, and that the 

### FBI agents then 

### "illegally seized" his confession,

### which 

### plaintiff altemately refers to as his personal property or his handwritten papers, and turnedthe confession over 

### to afederal magistrate 

### judge. Id. at 

## 4. The federal magistrate 

### judge used 

### plaintiffs confession 

### to issue an arrestwarrant 

### for plaintiff, the govemment later used 

### plaintiff sconfession 

### in securing an 

### indictment against 

### him, and

### finally used his confession asevidence against 

### him at his

### trial. See id. at4-5. 

# ' The 

### Office of the 

### Clerk of Court sent 

### plaintiff an application to proceed 

### in forma 

### p4qpcltt upon receipt 

### of his complaint, the granting 

### of which would relieve 

### plaintiff 

### of the 

### obligation to paythe 

### court's

### filing fee. At this 

### time, 

### plaintiff has notyet 

### filed his in forma pauperis 

### application. Anticipating that 

### plaintiff

### will complete and return the application, the court grants the expected application 

### for the 

### limited purpose 

## of dismissing the 

### complaint on

### jurisdictional grounds. 

# 2 Plaintiff provides a long 

### list 

### of employees, 

### including multiple Federal Bureau

### of Investigation agents, afederal magistrate 

### judge, afederal 

### district courtjudge, three judges 

### of the 

### United States Court of Appeals 

### for theTenth 

### Circuit, afederal prosecutor, 

### multiple legal counsel, the Federal Public Defender's 

### Office, as

### well as

### CCA Leavenworth and the 

### United States Senate Committee on the

### Judiciary. See 

### Compl. 3, ECF 

### No.

# l In addition, 

### plaintiff names several non-federal entities, 

### including the Kansas Bar Association, the 

### Office of Professional 

### Responsibility, and 

### two private law 

### firms. See 

### id.While the court does not interpret 

### plaintiff s

### complaint as being brought against any 

### ofthese individuals, even 

### if plaintiff had brought suit against any or 

### all

## of these 

### individuals, this court 

### would lack

### jurisdiction over 

### plaintiff s

### claim against them. Claims 

### for 

### relief against any party other than the 

### United States, 

### including officers of the 

### United States government, 

### "must be ignored as beyond the

### jurisdiction of the 

### court," United States 

### v. Sherwood. 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941); 

### Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed. 

### Cir. I997) 

### ("The Tucker 

### Act grants the 

### [United States] Court of Federal Claims 

### jurisdiction over suits against the 

### United States, not against 

### individual federal 

### officials."). 

# t CCA Leavenworth is a 

### maximum security federal detention center 

### in Kansas. 

### CCA Leavenworth Detention Center, http://cca.com,/facilities/leavenworth-detentioncenter (last 

### visited Feb.

### 20.2014\.The grand larceny of 

### which 

### plaintiff complains isthe 

### "seizure" of his

### written

confession. ld,.

## at4. The

### violation of his 

### privacy about

### which 

### plaintiff complains isthe act of the

### two 

### FBI agents entering 

### CCA Leavenworth and anesting 

### plaintiff and 

### "seizing" his

### written confession. ld. 

### at6-7. Plaintiff titled his 

### complaint a 

### "Memorandum 

### in Support

### of

### Tort," and he cited

### to the Federal 

### Tort Claims 

### Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. $ 1346(b) (2012), asauthorizing his 

### claim against the 

### United States 

### for damages. 

### Id. at 

### 1. Plaintiff contends that the 

### FBI agents,federal judges, and federal prosecutors 

### involved in the investigation, prosecution and adjudication 

### of the 

### criminal case against 

### him may be held 

### liable, in their personal capacities, when 

### individual 

### civil suits, such asthis one, are 

### brought. See 

### id. at 7-8. 

### Plaintiff seeksthe

### following relief:
( I)the retum 

### of his 

### "illegally seized" personal 

### property; (2) a

### full "expunge[ment]" of his 

### "entire criminal record"; (3)three

### trillion dollars, 

### for inter alia,

### wrongful imprisonment, loss

### of wages, invasion 

### ofprivacy, and emotional distress; and (4) release

### from his current imprisonment 

### in afederal penitentiary.
See id. at 9. 

### LEGAL STANDARD Complaints 

### filed by 

### pro se

### plaintiffs are held to "less stringent standardsthan 

### formal pleadings drafted by 

### lawyers." Haines v. 

### Kemer. 404 

### U.S. 519,520 (1972). Nevertheless, 

### "'the leniency afforded to a

### plq se 

### litigant 

### with respect to mere 

### formalities does not 

### relieve [his] burden to meet

### jurisdictional requirements."' Zulueta 

### v. United States, 

### No. 2013-5067 , 2014

### WL 

## ll420I, at

### *2 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2014) (quoting 

### Kelley v, Sec'lz. U.S. 

### Dep't of 

### Labor,82F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1987)). In evaluating subjectmatter

### jurisdiction, "the allegations stated in the 

### complaint are taken astrue and 

### jurisdiction is decided onthe face of the

### pleadings." Folden 

### v. United States 

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

### Cir. 2004). The court may question its

### own subject-matter 

### jurisdiction at any

### time. Rule 

### of the 

### United States Court 

### of Federal Claims 

### (RCFC) 12(hX3) 

## ("lf the court determines at any time that 

### it lacks subject-matter 

### jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the 

### action."); Folden, 379 F.3d

### at 1354 ("Subject-matter 

### jurisdiction may be challenged at any

### time

. .

.by the court sua

### sponte."). Subj ect-matter 

### jurisdiction, which involves a

### court's power to hear a case, may "never be

### forfeited or

### waived." Arbaugh 

### v.

### Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 5

### l4 (2006) 

### (quoting United States

### v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 

### 625, 630 (2002)).TheTucker 

### Act provides 

### for this court's

### jurisdiction over 

### "any claim against the



### United States founded either uponthe 

### Constitution, or any 

### Act ofCongress 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)(1) (2012) (emphasis added). 

### "This Court lacks

### jurisdiction to consider claims 

### which amount to collateral attacks on 

### criminal 

### convictions." See Perkinsv. 

### United States, 

### No. 13-023C,2013

### WL 3958350, at 

### *3 (Fed. 

### Cl. July 31,2013) (citing Carterv. 

### United States,228Ct. Cl. 898, 900 (1981)" (rejecting 

### claim, under various constitutional 

### provisions, for money damages and correction 

### of criminal records, and 

### holding that

## "Ii]fplaintiff had

### valid constitutional defenses to his 

### convictions on 

### criminal charges, he should have asserted them on appeal in the proper 

### court. This is not such acourt and he cannot here be heard to make a

### collateral attack on his convictions under the suise 

### of a

### claim for monev damages.")). 

### While this court has

### jurisdiction to hear a

### claim for money damages

### for unjust 

### conviction, such

### jurisdiction is dependent onthe challenged 

### conviction first having been reversed, set aside, overtumed after a new

### trial or hearing, or the prisoner having received

### apardon. See 28 

### U.S.C. $$ 1495,2513(a)(1) 

### (2012); see. e.s., Sharoe v. 

### United States, 112 Fed. 

### Cl. 468, 477 (2013). The 

### United States 

### district courts have exclusive 

### jurisdiction over claims brought under the Federal 

### Tort Claims

## Act. See28 U.S.C. 

### $ 

### 1346(b)(l) (2012); see. e.s., Evans v. 

### United States,249Fed. 

### App'x.201,203 (Fed. 

### Cir.2007). 

# III. DISCUSSION The court considers whether 

### it has

### jurisdiction over 

### plaintiff s

### claim, and 

### if not, whether 

### itwould be in the interest

### ofjustice to transfer 

### plaintiff sclaim to afederal 

### district court 

### in which the 

### claim could have been brought. 

# A. Court of Federal Claims 

### Jurisdiction 

### Plaintiff points to the Federal 

### Tort Claims 

### Act asauthorization 

### for his 

### claim, see 

# ' The 

### United States Court 

### ofAppeals for the Federal 

### Circuit established the holdings of the 

### Court of Claims issued before the close 

### ofbusiness on September 30, 1982 as precedent

### for the Federal 

### Circuit. See South Corp. v. 

### United States 

### , 690 F .2d 1368, 1370 

### (1982). Accordingly, Ca(er is 

### binding precedent in

### this court.

### Compl. 

### I, basing his 

### claim onthe acts of various govemment employees, see 

### id. at 3-5.



### But, the acts about 

### which he complains arethe 

### "seizure" 

### ofhis written confession and 

### his later arrest, and the 

### injury for 

### which he seeks 

### relief isthe 

### criminal conviction that has resulted 

### in his current 

### incarceration. 

### Plaintiffs grievances are

### wholly and 

### inextricably related to his 

### criminal conviction. 

### Plaintiffs claim is acollateral attack on his 

### criminal conviction, and this court lacks

### jurisdiction to hear

## it. See

### Carter,228Ct.Cl. at900. Assuming that 

### plaintiff had brought a

### valid Federal 

### Tort Claims 

### Act claim, this court 

### would 

### still lack j

### urisdiction to hear

## it. As statutorily provided, the 

### district courts have exclusive 

### jurisdiction over 

### tort claims 

### for money damages against the 

### United States. 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 

### 1346(bXl) ("[T]he district courts

. . .shall have exclusive 

### jurisdiction of 

### civil actions on claims against the 

### United States, 

### for money damages,

. . . 

### for 

### injury or loss

### ofproperty.

. . caused 

### by the negligent or

### wrongful act or omission 

## of any employee of the Government 

### while acting

### within the scope 

### of his 

### office or employment

. . . 

### ."). 

### Plaintiff makes no allegation that his 

### conviction has been reversed, set aside, overturned after a new

### trial or hearing, or that he has received a

### pardon. Rather, the 

### front page of 

### plaintiff s

### complaint lists his address as the U.S. Penitentiary McCreary, see 

### Compl. 1,and among his requests

### for 

### relief is his release

### from the same, see 

### id. at 9. 

### Accordingly, even 

### if the court contrued 

### plaintiff s

### claim for damages 

### ofunjust conviction as being brought under 28 U.S.C. 

### $$ 1495,2513, the court 

### still would lack 

### jurisdiction over the claim. 

### A review of the 

### complaint discloses that 

### plaintiff has made no 

### claim over 

### which this court has

### jurisdiction. 

# B. Transfer Under 28 

### U.S.C. $ 163l When this court determines that 

### it lacks

### jurisdiction, it must transfer the case to a court where the action could have been brought, 

### if thetransfer 

### "is in the interest

## of justice." 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1631 (2012). Proper venue 

### in a

### district court is defined 

### by statute,

### which provides that a

### civil action may be brought 

### in 

### "ajudicial district in 

### which a substantial part 

### of the events

. . . 

### giving rise to the 

### claim 

### occurred." 28 U.S.C. 

### g 1391(b)(2) (2012). The events of 

### which 

### plaintiff complains occurred at

### CCA Leavenworth 

### in Kansas. See 

### Compl.

### 3-4. Plaintiff was convicted and sentenced in the 

### United States 

### District 

### court for the 

### District of Kansas and appealed 

### his sentence, unsuccessfully, to the 

### United States 

### Court of Appeals 

### for the Tenth 

### Circuit. See id. at 3; Beadles 

### v. UnitedStates, 508 Fed.

### App'x. 807, 809-10 

### (lOth Cir. 

### 2013). The

### district court to

### which this

matter could be transfened, 

### if in the interest

### ofjustice, isthe U.S. 

### District Courtfor the 

### District of Kansas, 

### which sits 

### in theTenth 

### Circuit Court 

### of Appeals. Under Tenth 

### Circuit precedent, however, 

### it is clear that the Federal 

### Tort Claims 

### Act is not an appropriate vehicle 

### for challenging the

### validity 

### ofan outstanding 

### criminal 

### judgment. See Parris 

### v. United States, 45 F.3d 383, 385 (1Oth 

### Cir. 1995). 

### Mr. Panis was an incarcerated 

### plaintiff who brought an action under the Federal 

### Tort Claims 

### Act for alleged attomey malpractice 

### during his 

### district court 

### criminal 

### trial. See id. at 384. The Tenth 

### Circuit saidthat

### while 

### Mr. Panis' claim was "couched interms of negligence, he [was] actually seeking further 

### review of the basis

### for his 

### conviction," through his allegations 

### ofthe use 

### of false and fabricated evidence to 

### convict 

### him. Id.

### As theTenth 

### Circuit explained. The 

### FTCA

. . .creates

### liability for certaintorts committed by government 

### officials. As such, we conclude the same common law 

### principles that 

### informedthe Supreme Court's decision 

### in Heck should 

### inform the decision 

### of whether an action under the 

### FTCA is cognizable when 

### it calls 

### into question the

### validity of a 

### prior conviction. We conclude the 

### FTCA

. . . is 

### "not [an] appropriate 

### vehicle[ 

### ] for challenging the

### validity of outstanding criminal 

### judgments." Id. at 385 

### (quoting Heck 

### v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 

### 477,486 (1994)). The court cannot

### find that

### justice would be seryed bytransferring 

### plaintiff s collateral attack on his 

### criminal conviction, brought under the guise 

### of a 

### FTCA claim, to a

### district court that does not recognize the 

### FTCA as an appropriate 

### vehicle

### for challenging a

### criminal 

### conviction. For this reason, the undersigned declines totransfer 

### plaintiffs complaint to afederal 

### district court. 

### IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons,the court finds that 

### it lacks

### jurisdiction over 

### plaintiff s 

### claims. 

### Plaintiff s

### complaint is 

### DISMISSED without 

### prejudice. The

### clerk of 

### court 

### will enter

### judgment for defendant. No costs. 

### IT IS SO

### ORDERED.



### ATRICIA E: 

### ChiefJudge