Opinion · United States Court of Federal Claims
Anderson v. United States
117 Fed. Cl. 330
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- United States Court of Federal Claims
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2014-07-01
- Topic
- bankruptcy
ruling that the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction “over any claims alleged against states, localities, state and local government entities, or state and local government officials and employees’ | ruling that the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction "over any claims alleged against states, localities, state and local government entities, or state and local government officials and employees." | holding our court lacks jurisdiction “over any claims alleged against states, localities, state and local government entities, or state and local government officials and employees” | explaining that this court cannot hear claims against "states, localities, state and local government officials, state courts, state prisons, or state employees." | explaining that this court cannot hear claims against "states, localities, state and local government officials, state courts, state prisons, or state employees." | stating that the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction “over any claims alleged against states, localities, state and local government entities, or state and local government officials and employees.” | stating that this court lacks “jurisdiction over any claims alleged against states, localities, state and local government entities, or state and local government officials and employees; jurisdiction only extends to suits against the United States itself” | stating that this Court is without jurisdiction "over any claims alleged against states, localities, state and local government entities, or state and local government officials and employees; jurisdiction only extends to suits against the United States itself' | stating that this Court is without jurisdiction “over any claims alleged against states, localities, state and local government entities, or state and local government officials and employees; jurisdiction only extends to suits against the United States itself” | stating that "[t]his court does not have jurisdiction over any claims alleged against states, localities, state and local government entities, or state and local government officials and employees; jurisdiction only extends to suits against the United States itself." | stating that "[t]his court does not have jurisdiction over any claims alleged against states, localities, state and local government entities, or state and local government officials and employees; jurisdiction only extends to suits against the United States itself' | stating that "[t]his court does not have jurisdiction over any claims alleged against states, localities, state and local government entities, or state and local government officials and employees; jurisdiction only extends to suits against the United States itself." | finding the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction "over any claims alleged against states, localities, state and local govermnent entities, or state and local government officials and employees" | dismissing claims implicating state and local officials for lack of jurisdiction | dismissing claims implicating state and local officials for lack of jurisdiction | dismissing claims against state and local officials for lack of jurisdiction | dismissing claims implicating state and local officials for lack of jurisdiction | “This court does not have jurisdiction over any claims alleged against states, localities, [or] state and local government entities . . . .” | “This court does not have jurisdiction over any claims alleged against states, localities, state and local government entities, or state and local government officials and employees” | the Court “does not have jurisdiction over any claims alleged against states, localities, state and local government entities, or state and local government officials and employees[.]” | “This court does not have jurisdiction over any claims alleged against states, localities, state and local government entities, or state and local government officials and employees” | The Court does not have jurisdiction ov
Citator
- Cited by
- 36 opinions
*331 ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
NANCY B. FIRESTONE, JudgeIn this case, plaintiff Steven T. Anderson (“Mr. Anderson”) alleges that the Salt Lake County Assessor’s office and other various local officials have violated the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice’s (“USPAP”) record-keeping rules by failing to supply plaintiffs work records following his termination as an appraiser with the office. Plaintiff identifies the USPAP as a “federal policy.”
Under Rule 12(h)(3) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” In so determining, the court may consider the issue of jurisdiction on its own without being raised by any party. Folden v. United States, 379 F.3d 1344, 1354 (Fed.Cir.2004). In considering a ease brought by a pro se plaintiff, the court holds “the pleading ‘to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’ ” Johnson v. United States, 411 Fed.Appx. 303, 305 (Fed.Cir.2010) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)). Despite this permissive standard, a pro se plaintiff must still satisfy the court’s jurisdictional requirements. Bernard v. United States, 59 Fed.Cl. 497, 499 (2004) (“This latitude, however, does not relieve a pro se plaintiff from meeting jurisdictional requirements.”), aff'd 98 Fed.Appx. 860 (Fed.Cir.2004).
The court has reviewed Mr. Anderson’s complaint and finds that jurisdiction is lacking. In his complaint, Mr. Anderson names “Salt Lake County, Salt Lake County Assessor, Kevin Jacobs, Matthew Smith, and Steven Dana” as defendants. Complaint 1, ECF No. 1. This court does not have jurisdiction over any claims alleged against states, localities, state and local government entities, or state and local government officials and employees; jurisdiction only extends to suits against the United States itself. See United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588, 61 S.Ct. 767, 85 L.Ed. 1058 (1941) (“[I]ts jurisdiction is confined to the rendition of money judgments in suits brought for that relief against the United States, ... and if 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.”) (citations omitted); Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed.Cir.1997), reh’g denied (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. United States, 99 Fed.Cl. 581, 583-84 (2011) (citing Moore v. Pub. Defender’s Office, 76 Fed.Cl. 617, 620 (2007)). Moreover, while Mr. Anderson cites USPAP as a “federal policy,” nothing in USPAP authorizes a claim for money damages against the United States.
As this court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case, the ease must be DISMISSED. The *332 clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. 2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
. Plaintiff’s amended application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 6, is GRANTED for the limited purpose of filing this complaint.