explaining that pro se litigants are “entitled to a liberal construction of [their] pleadings”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that pro se litigants are “entitled to a liberal construction of [their] pleadings”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 24-1246C
(Filed: October 22, 2024)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
***************************************
DERRICK M. ALLEN, SR., *
*
Plaintiff, *
*
v. *
*
THE UNITED STATES, *
*
Defendant. *
*
*************************************
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Derrick M. Allen, Sr., proceeding pro se, seeks $10,000 in
compensation for the alleged mishandling of his mail. See Complaint (ECF 1).
Plaintiff has moved to proceed in forma pauperis. See Mot. for Leave (ECF 2). The
government opposes allowing Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis, and has moved
to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See Resp. & Mot. (ECF 7).
Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED, and the motion to dismiss is
GRANTED.
This Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction — its authority to pass judgment on
the cases before it — is limited to specific types of claims, most commonly non-tort
claims for money damages under the Tucker Act. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); see
also Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“The Court of Federal
Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction.”). Perhaps confusingly for pro se litigants, it
is not a forum for “federal claims” generally. Claims that are outside the Court’s
jurisdiction must be dismissed. RCFC 12(h)(3). “In determining jurisdiction, a court
must accept as true all undisputed facts asserted in the plaintiff’s complaint and draw
all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United
States, 659 F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d
795, 797 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). “Although a pro se plaintiff’s complaint is held to a less
stringent standard than those prepared by counsel, pro se litigants are not excused
from meeting jurisdictional requirements.” Spengler v. United States, 688 F. App’x
917, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citations omitted) (citing Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9
(1980), and Kelley v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987)) ;
see also Howard-Pinson v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 551, 553 (2006) (explaining that
pro se litigants are “entitled to a liberal construction of [their] pleadings”) (citing
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972)).
This is not the first time Mr. Allen has raised claims like the ones presented
here. The Federal Circuit has in fact already explained to him that “allegations about
the mishandling and withholding of his mail … do not fall within [the Court of
Federal Claims’] jurisdiction, as those claims sound in tort.” Allen v. United States,
No. 2021-1631, 2022 WL 180760, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 20, 2022). His new claims must
be dismissed for the same reason. The motion to dismiss is therefore GRANTED.
This case is part of Plaintiff’s history of filing frivolous lawsuits. See, e.g., Allen
v. United States, No. 22-1789, 2023 WL 125248, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 6, 2023); Allen v.
Better Dental, No. 22-1281, 2022 WL 2987954, at *1 (4th Cir. July 28, 2022); Allen v.
N. C. Admin. Hearings, 805 F. App’x 246, 247 (4th Cir. 2020); Allen v. United States,
No. 22-1793C, 2022 WL 18109953, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 13, 2022), aff’d in part, vacated
in part, remanded, 88 F.4th 983 (Fed. Cir. 2023). In such circumstances, courts have
discretion to deny litigants leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Straw v. United States,
No. 2021-1600, 2021 WL 3440773, at *6 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 6, 2021); In re Sindram, 498
U.S. 177, 179–180 (1991); see also In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989).
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is therefore DENIED. Given
that similar claims by the same Plaintiff have been rejected by the Federal Circuit
before, I CERTIFY that any appeal from the judgment would not be taken in good
faith. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3).
On September 9, 2024, the Court received Plaintiff’s submission entitled
“Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and
Motion for Summary Judgment.” Plaintiff’s submission shall be FILED BY MY
LEAVE, under seal, and construed as “Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s Response in
Opposition to Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Motion for Summary
Dismissal.”
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Stephen S. Schwartz
STEPHEN S. SCHWARTZ
Judge
-2-