Court Opinion

ID: 9377093
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-06 21:01:32.889596+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:11.724513
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                            No. 22-1221
                                        Filed: March 6, 2023

                                                )
 ZAR EL JAVON-MARTISE THOMAS                    )
 BEY,                                           )
                                                )
                        Plaintiff,              )
                                                )
 v.
                                                )
 THE UNITED STATES,                             )
                                                )
                        Defendant.              )
                                                )

                                     OPINION AND ORDER

        Zar EL Javon-Martise Thomas Bey alleges that he was “unlawfully interrogated,
detained, arrested and incarcerated as a result of the actions of the Spring Lake Police Officers
serving an unlawful warrant against Mr. Thomas Bey.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 1. He also complains of
other wrongs he alleges were committed by other employees of the Spring Lake Police
Department, Anoka County, Minnesota, or the lawyers and judge presiding over state court
matters in Minnesota. As a result of these alleged wrongs, Plaintiff seeks $700,000 for
“unlawful detention” (a rate of $25,000 per hour for the 28 hours he was held), $75,000 for
“false arrest / imprisonment,” $75,000 for “kidnapping / harassment,” and $25,000 for “coercion
/ duress to comply.” ECF No. 1 at Prayer for Relief. Plaintiff captions his action against the
“State of Minnesota County of Anoka” and styles it a “tort claim complaint.” The Government
moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

        This Court has jurisdiction to hear monetary claims against the United States “founded
either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive
department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States . . . not sounding in
tort.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). It is Plaintiff’s burden to establish this Court’s jurisdiction by a
preponderance of evidence. Haynes v. United States, 122 Fed. Cl. 166, 169 (2015); see also
Kelley v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987). When deciding the
motion to dismiss, the Court “must accept as true all undisputed facts asserted in the plaintiff’s
complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Trusted Integration, Inc.
v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Although the Court affords pro se
litigants leniency, Plaintiff must still establish the Court’s jurisdiction. Bernard v. United States,
59 Fed. Cl. 497, 499 (2004). If the Court determines it lacks jurisdiction, it must dismiss the
case. RCFC 12(h)(3).

        Because the Court lacks jurisdiction over this case, it must be dismissed. First, Plaintiff
brings his claims against officers of a local police department and Minnesota state officials—he
names only the State of Minnesota and the County of Anoka as the defendants to his case. ECF
No. 1 at 1 (caption). And all his allegations are against state and local employees. E.g., id. ¶¶ 1-
14. But this Court lacks jurisdiction over claims against any defendant other than the United
States. United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) (“[I]f the relief sought is against
others than the United States the suit as to them must be ignored as beyond the jurisdiction of the
court.”); Fullard v. United States, 78 Fed. Cl. 294, 301 (Fed. Cl. 2007) (“[T]he Court of Federal
Claims does not have jurisdiction to hear claims against states or state officials.”); Moore v.
Public Defenders Office, 76 Fed. Cl. 617, 620 (2007) (explaining the Court has no jurisdiction to
entertain claims against “local, county, or state agencies, rather than [F]ederal agencies”).
Because Plaintiff does not bring any claim against the United States, the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over his complaint.

         Second, Plaintiff’s claims sound in tort. Indeed, he styles his complaint a “tort claim
complaint” and seeks damages for unlawful detention, false arrest / imprisonment, kidnapping /
harassment, and coercion / duress to comply. All these claims sound in tort. Myles v. United
States, No. 2021-1758, 2022 WL 126911, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 13, 2022) (“[A] malicious
prosecution claim . . . is a tort claim.”); Krukowski v. United States, 129 Fed. Cl. 440, 443 (2016)
(“Claims of false arrest, abuse and negligence sound in tort.”); Medved v. United States, No. 19-
1665C, 2020 WL 570884, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 5, 2020) (“[U]nlawful detainment sounds in
tort.”). Because this Court’s jurisdiction does not include any claims sounding in tort, it lacks
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s tort claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1).

        Third, Plaintiff references 28 U.S.C. § 1495, which grants this Court jurisdiction over
“any claim for damages by any person unjustly convicted of an offense against the United States
and imprisoned.” But Section 1495 does not provide jurisdiction in this case because Plaintiff
does not allege that he was convicted of any crime, much less a federal crime. And to bring a
claim under Section 1495, Plaintiff must allege and prove that his conviction has been set aside
or he was pardoned for actual innocence. 28 U.S.C. § 2513. Because Plaintiff fails to allege any
of this or provide a certificate of innocence, Section 1495 does not provide jurisdiction to hear
his case.

        Finally, even if the Court had jurisdiction, it would dismiss the case. The Government
moved to dismiss this case on December 23, 2022. ECF No. 11. Under the Court’s Rules,
Plaintiff had until January 20, 2023, to respond to the Government’s motion. RCFC 7.2(b).
Plaintiff has not responded. Therefore, dismissal is also proper under RCFC 41(b) on the
Court’s motion for failure to prosecute.

       For the reasons explained above, the Court GRANTS the Government’s motion to
dismiss, ECF No. 11. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Clerk’s Office shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                             s/ Edward H. Meyers
                                                             Edward H. Meyers
                                                             Judge