Case: Buddy Miller v. The United States
Abbreviation: Miller v. United States
Decision Date: 1982-08-20
Docket Number: No. 733-81C
Citation: 231 Ct. Cl. 906
Volume: 231
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Buddy Miller v. The United States
Judges: Before Davis, Nichols and Bennett, Judges.
Pages: 906–907

Head Matter:
No. 733-81C.
August 20, 1982
Buddy Miller v. The United States
Francis L. Ruppert, attorney of record, for plaintiff. Ruppert, Westhus and Benjamin, of counsel.
John W. Showalter, with whom was Assistant Attorney General J. Paul McGrath, for defendant. William F. Bronson, Deputy General Counsel, Army & Air Force Exchange Service, of counsel.
Before Davis, Nichols and Bennett, Judges.

Opinion:
per curiam:
Plaintiffs petition alleges that (a) the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (Exchange Service) had a contract with Gino Moreno Enterprises (Enterprises) under which Enterprises was to render certain services (including barbering) at various military installations; (b) Enterprises employed plaintiff as a supervisory barber at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri; (c) at the request of officials of the Exchange Service, Enterprises discharged plaintiff; (d) the same thing occurred later at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and again at Tinker Air Force Base, Texas; and (e) those discharges, at the instance of Exchange Service officials, were all unwarranted and illegal. This action was first commenced in the Western District of Missouri which transferred the case to this court. Defendant has moved to dismiss; plaintiff has not answered that motion and his time has expired. We agree with the government.
First, on plaintiffs own allegations, he himself had no contract with the Exchange Service. His employer, Enterprises, was an independent contractor, and his contractual relationship was solely with Enterprises. His case cannot, therefore, fall within an Exchange Service's contract suit allowable in this court under United States v. Hopkins, 427 U.S. 123 (1978). See Army and Air Force Exchange Service v. Sheehan, 456 U.S. 728 (1982).
Second, if plaintiff is alleging a right to recover money under the Tucker Act because of an alleged violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, he has chosen a tribunal which is without such jurisdiction because that constitutional provision does not mandate any compensation by the United States. Eastport S.S. Corp. v. United States, 178 Ct. Cl. 599, 372 F.2d 1002 (1967). Nor are we aware of any relevant statutes providing for compensation in these circumstances. To the extent the suit is for a tort, this court plainly has no jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1491.
Third, counts two and three, which seek relief from named federal employees, are obviously beyond the jurisdiction of this court which is restricted to suits against the United States.
Accordingly, without oral argument, defendant's motion to dismiss is granted and the petition is dismissed, it is so ORDERED .