Court Opinion

ID: 9363079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-13 18:01:19.509894+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:28.374884
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION
______________________________________
                                       )
CEDRIC GREENE,                         )
                                       )
                  Plaintiff,           )       No. 23-14
                                       )
            v.                         )       Filed: January 13, 2023
                                       )
THE UNITED STATES,                     )
                                       )
                  Defendant.           )
______________________________________ )

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

       On January 4, 2023, Plaintiff Cedric Greene, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint in this

Court. See Pl.’s Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges that the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of California sent him mail that referred to him as a “Vexatious Litigant” on the

front of the envelope. Id. at 2; Ex. 1 to Pl.’s Compl. at 1–2, ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiff alleges that

such action violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. ECF No. 1 at 1.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified “civil damages” as redress. Id. at 3. Plaintiff also filed an Application

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP Application”). Pl.’s Appl. to Proceed In Forma Pauperis,

ECF No. 2.

       A plaintiff, even when proceeding pro se, must demonstrate that the Court has jurisdiction

over his claim. Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exchange Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss

the action.” RCFC 12(h)(3). This Court has jurisdiction under the Tucker Act to adjudicate claims

for monetary relief against the United States other than those sounding in tort. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1491(a)(1) (2018). The Tucker Act, however, does not create a substantive cause of action, and
“in order to come within the jurisdictional reach and the waiver of the Tucker Act, a plaintiff must

identify a separate source of substantive law that creates the right to money damages.” Fisher v.

United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

       Plaintiff’s Complaint identifies the First Amendment as the substantive source of law

underlying his claim. ECF No. 1 at 1. However, “[t]his court does not have jurisdiction over . . .

claims for violations of the First Amendment because the First Amendment does not obligate the

Federal Government to pay money damages.” Madison v. United States, 98 Fed. Cl. 393, 396

(2011) (citing United States v. Connolly, 716 F.2d 882, 886–87 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Accordingly,

the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s constitutional claim.        To the extent Plaintiff’s

allegations are better construed as asserting a slander claim, see ECF No. 1 at 2, such claim is a

tort. It is well-settled that the Court lacks jurisdiction over tort claims as well. See Wall v. United

States, 141 Fed. Cl. 585, 598 (2019) (collecting cases); see also Aldridge v. United States, 67 Fed.

Cl. 113, 120 (2005) (“Allegations involving slander sound in tort, and, therefore, this court does

not have jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s slander claim.”).

       Because the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims, the Court

DISMISSES Plaintiff’s case. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. The

Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP Application (ECF No. 2) for the limited purpose of this order.

       SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2023                                        /s/ Kathryn C. Davis
                                                               KATHRYN C. DAVIS
                                                               Judge

                                                  2