Court Opinion

ID: 9376791
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-03 21:01:17.38907+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:09.427630
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                            No. 23-295
                                      (Filed: 3 March 2023)
                                    NOT FOR PUBLICATION

***************************************
TANYA WINTERS,                        *
                                      *
                  Plaintiff,          *
                                      *
v.                                    *
                                      *
THE UNITED STATES,                    *
                                      *
                  Defendant.          *
                                      *
***************************************

                                             ORDER

HOLTE, Judge.

       On 21 February 2023, pro se plaintiff Tanya Winters filed a complaint. See Compl., ECF
No. 1. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges she was “violently arrested” and the state of Arizona holds
garnished child support. Id. at 4–5. Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of “transparency and
accountability with justice for all.” Id. at A-7.

        After careful review of plaintiff’s complaint, the Court suspects it lacks jurisdiction over
plaintiff’s claims. This Court’s authority to hear cases is set forth by the Tucker Act, which
grants the Court of Federal Claims subject-matter jurisdiction over claims brought against the
United States that are grounded on a money-mandating source of law and do not sound in tort.
28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). The Court’s jurisdiction does not extend to claims against state or local
officials or private individuals. See 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 th[is] court.”). The Court further does not have jurisdiction over
claims of violations regarding criminal statutes. See Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378 (Fed.
Cir. 1994) (summarily affirming this court’s finding of having “no jurisdiction to adjudicate any
claims whatsoever under the federal criminal code”).

        Rule 12(h)(3) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) provides “[i]f the
court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the
action.” The Court therefore ORDERS plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE on or before 4 April 2023
as to why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to RCFC 12(h)(3). In responding to this
order, plaintiff must identify which source or sources of money-mandating law she is invoking,
identify how her claims are against the United States, and explain why this Court has jurisdiction
over this case. The Court accordingly STAYS the government’s answer pending the Court’s
review of plaintiff’s forthcoming response. The government SHALL FILE its response to
plaintiff’s brief within 30 days of the date plaintiff files her brief.

      IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                 s/ Ryan T. Holte
                                                 RYAN T. HOLTE
                                                 Judge

                                           -2-