Edwards v. United States

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

N0. 13-97lC

(Filed: January l0, 2014)

*************************************

* JAN '@ 2014

STEVEN E. EDWARDS, * U_S_ CO

=1< FEDEHAL%RLQOF

Piainurf, * ""S

*

v. *

*

THE UNITED STATES, *

*

Defendant. *

*

*************************************

ORDER OF DISl\/IISSAL

On December 9, 20l3, pro se Plaintiff Steven E. Edwards filed suit in this Court

against the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, a district court

judge, two federal prosecutors, and his defense counsel. On December 11, 2013, Mr.

Edwards filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19l5(a), the Court may authorize the commencement and

prosecution of a civil action without prepayment of fees and costs by a person who, by

affidavit, demonstrates that he is unable to pay such costs. Mr. Edwards has supplied the

Court with an executed, standard-form application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Accordingly, Mr. Edwards’ application is hereby GRANTED. However, for the reasons

set forth below, his complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Subject matter jurisdiction is defined as a court’s authority to hear and decide the

case before it. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (l998). Thus, the

existence of subject matter jurisdiction must first be established before a court can

consider the merits of a complaint. I_d. at 94-95. In addition, every court has the duty to

inquire into its authority to hear a case, regardless of whether the issue has been raised by

the parties. Special Devices, Inc. v. OEA, Inc., 269 F.3d l340, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001);

Miller v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 Ct. Cl. 804, 809 (1982). "If` the court determines at any

time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Rules of

the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC") l2(h)(3).

The subject matter of this case is Mr. Edwards’ conviction by plea agreement in

the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina for mail fraud, theft of

health care funds, and attempt to evade and defeat federal taxes. §e_e United States. v.

Edwards, No. l:05CR265-l (M.D.N.C. June 26, 2006). Specifically, Mr. Edwards

argues that his "sentencing was done illegally" and objects to his forfeiture of property,

payment of restitution, and sentencing enhancements. Compl. 2. As relief he requests

that this Court "enforce the contract that was not done under good faith." Compl. l.

These claims cannot be prosecuted in this forum, as "the Supreme Court has made

clear that claims for breach of plea agreements and other agreements unique to the

criminal justice system should be brought in the courts in which they were negotiated and

executed." Sanders v. United States, 252 F.3d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing

Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (l97l)). In fact, Mr. Edwards has already

unsuccessfully challenged his sentence in the proper courts. In the district court, he filed

both a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence and a § 2244

motion for leave to file a second or successive habeas petition. In the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, he filed a notice of appeal. Mr. Edwards’ lack of success

in making those challenges does not entitle him to another opportunity here. Finally,

even if Plaintiff could state a viable claim, this Court lacks the authority to hear claims

against individual Government officials. Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624

(Fed. Cir. 1997)(¢11;111,<; 28 U.s.c. § 1491(@1)).

For the reasons set forth above, this Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the

merits of Mr. Edwards’ complaint. Accordingly, this action is hereby DISMISSED

without prejudice. _

zant c @i?»!l

THOMAS C. WHEELER

Judge

IT lS SO ORDERED.