Court Opinion

ID: 2673233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-05-10 03:01:42.645934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:27.923675
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. l4-372C
(Filed: May 9, 2014)

>l<>|<>l<>|<>l<>|<>l<>l<>l<>l<>|<>l<>l<>l¢>|<>l<>l<>l<>l<=|<*>l=>l<=l=>l<>|<

BRIAN DAVID MATTHEWS,

Plaintiff
v.
THE UNITED STATES,

Defendanl.

>l<>|=>l<*>l<>k>k>k>k>k>l<>k>l<>k>|<>|<>l<>l<>|<>l<>|<>|<>l<>|<>l<>|<

ORDER

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed a complaint and a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis on May l, 2014.1 To the extent that the court can
discern what plaintiff is alleging, the complaint appears to allege the
unauthorized use of plaintiff`s name by an agent of the United States. That
agent is identified as the "‘STATE OF WASHINGTON’; and/or that entity
which identifies itself as ‘Department of Corrections’." Compl. 1 4.
Plaintiff" s address indicates that he is incarcerated in the state of Washington.

Jurisdiction is a threshold matter. See Steel Co. v. Citz'zens for a Better
Env ’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998). The court may raise the issue sua sponte at
any time. Fola’en v. United Slates, 379 F.3d 1344, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2()()4).
Although plaintiff is appearing pro se, and pro se litigants are afforded
latitude, that cannot excuse jurisdictional failings. See Kelly v. U.S. Sec ’y of
Dep’z‘ ofLabor, 812 F.Zd 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ("a court may not
similarly take a liberal view of that jurisdictional requirement and set a
different rule for pro se litigants only"). lt is unnecessary to wait for further
filings in this case because it is clear on the face of the complaint that plaintiff

1 F or good cause shown, we grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis