# Pierce v. United States > United States Court of Federal Claims · August 13, 2014 · 117 Fed. Cl. 798 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2717833 ## Case - **Full name:** Ronald Edward PIERCE, Pro Se Plaintiff, v. the UNITED STATES, Defendant - **Court:** United States Court of Federal Claims - **Decided:** August 13, 2014 - **Citations:** 117 Fed. Cl. 798; 114 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5908; 2014 U.S. Claims LEXIS 791; 2014 WL 3955001 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Opinion by Firestone - **Judges:** Nancy B. Firestone - **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2717833 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - stating that neither the United States Tax Court nor the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California were a "public entity" for purposes of the ADA ## Opinion text ORIGINAI. litr tltt @nitr! $ltuttg [.turt of ftDtru[ @lsimg No. 14-105C FILED (Filed: August 13, 2014) AUG 13 2014 U,S, COURT OF FEDERALCI.AI['S RONALD EDWARD PIERCE" Pro Se Plaintiff, Motion to dismiss, Rule l2(b)(1) (lack of subject jurisdiction); State law claims; Americans with Disabilities THE UNITED STATES, Act,42 U.S.C. $$ 12101, 12131, 12132 ; Administrative Procedure Act, Defendant. 42 U.S.C. $$ 701, 702. Ronald Edward Pierce, Squaw Valley, CA, p4-q9 plaintiff. Michael D. Snyder, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, with whom were Stuart F. Delery, Assislant Attomey General, and Robert E. Kirschman, -Ir., Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, for defendant. OPINION DISMISSING COMPLAINT FIRESTONE, -/r;dge. Pending before this court is defendant the United States' ("the government") motion to dismiss the complaint in the above-captioned action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(bXl) of the Rules of the United States Court ofFederal Claims ("RCFC"), Docket No. 14, filed June 5, 2014. In the complaint, p1q_g9 plaintiff Ronald Edward Pierce ("Mr. Pierce" or "plaintiff') alleges that the United States Tax Court ("tax court") failed to accommodate his disabilities when it refused to change the location and timing of a trial scheduled in a tax case he had filed in Califomia. Mr. Pierce also alleges that the United States District Court for the Eastem District of Califomia failed to accommodate his disabilities when it refused to intervene on his behalfbefore the tax court. Mr. Pierce charses that the tax court and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Califomia are liable to him for damases under the state law by failing to accommodate his disabilities. Specifically, Mr. Pierce claims that he is entitled to damages under the California Unruh Civil Rights Act ("Unruh Act"). Cal. Civ. Code $ 51. According to Mr. Pierce, damages under California law are available against entities that violate the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 C'ADA'), 42 U.S.C. $ 12101 etseq. Mr. Pierce claims that this court has jurisdiction to hear his case because the above-referenced federal courts violated his rights under the ADA. He also argues that this court has jurisdiction to hear his case and award him damages under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. $ 702. The govemment argues that this court must dismiss Mr. Pierce's case on the grounds that this court does not have jurisdiction to award damages under the Unruh Act, the ADA, or the APA. For the reasons explained below, this court GRANTS the govemment's motion to dismiss. I. FACTUALBACKGROUND The complaint includes the following allegations. On February 21,2012, plaintiff filed a suit in the tax court challenging a tax deficiency with the Internal Revenue Service. After receiving a second notice of deficiency, plaintiff filed a second suit, and selected Fresno, Califomia as his preferred place for trial. Plaintiff alleges that, because he is disabled, he could not travel to San Francisco, Califomia for a trial. However, as plaintiffhad elected to bring his case as a regular tax case rather than as a small tax oase, and because only small tax cases are heard in Fresno, the trial was scheduled to be heard in San Francisco. After receiving notice of the trial, Mr. Pierce filed a motion to change the place of trial to Fresno. When this motion was denied due to plaintiff s case's classification, plaintiff contacted the tax court's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission officer, who instructed him to refile his motion. Thereafter, the motion was granted and the trial was re-scheduled for February 3,2014 in Fresno. The case was also reclassified as a small tax case. After the trial was rescheduled, Mr. Pierce sought a continuance of his case, arguing that a continuance was necessary to accommodate his disability and in order for him to deal with the additional cases he had pending in the tax court. Plaintiffs request was made infbrmally to various employees of the tax court. When his request was not granted, he sought help from the United States District Court for the Eastem District of Califomia, and then from the United States District Court for the Central District of califomia. After those efforts failed, Mr. Pierce filed a request for judicial notice with the tax court requesting that the court acknowledge its alleged lack of accommodation. After the tax court entered an order requiring plaintiffto appear at the scheduled date and time for trial, plaintiff filed a "Swom Affidavit of Prejudice" alleging that the judge to whom the case was assigned was not impartial. The tax court then entered an order again requiring plaintiffto appear, stating that failure to appear could result in dismissal of the case. On February 6,2014, plaintiff filed his complaint in this court. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The United States Court of Federal Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction. Under the Tucker Act, the United States Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction to hear claims against the united states that are "founded either upon the constitution, or any Act ofCongress or any regulation ofan executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United states, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages rn cases not sounding in tort." 28 u.s.c. g la9l(a) (2011). where the court has not been granted jurisdiction to hear a claim, the case must be dismissed. See Arbaugh v. y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). Subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived or forfeited; when a court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction, the complaint must be dismissed in its entirety. Spg John R. Sand & Gravel co. v. United States,457 F.3d 1345,1354 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction, Alder Terrace. Inc. v. United stares, l6l F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. cir. l99g) (citing McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, lg9 (1936), and must do so by a preponderance of evidence, Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exchanee service g46 F .2d , 746,748 (Fed. cir. 1988). when ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack ofjurisdiction, the court considers uncontested facts alleged in the complaint to be ftue and correct. Reynolds, 846 F .2d at 7 47 . The court may also consider materials outside of the pleadings to determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over a claim. Aviation Software. Inc. v. United States, 101 Fed. C\.656,661 (2011) (citing Rocovich v. United States,933 F.2d991,993 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). The court holds plq_Se "pleading[s] 'to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Johnson v. United States, 4l I Fed. Appx. 303, 305 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,520 (1972)). Nonetheless, a pre_le plaintiff must still satisf the court's jurisdictional requirements. Bernard v. united States, 59 Fed. Cl. 497,499 (200a) ("This latitude, however, does not relieve a plq_qg plaintiff from meeting jurisdictional requirements."), aff d, 98 Fed. Appx. 860 (Fed. cir. 2004). III. DISCUSSION In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that the tax court and United States District court for the Eastern District of califomia failed to accommodate his disability as required by the ADA, and thus these courts owe him damages under califomia law. In support of his complaint, Mr. Pierce cites Munson v. Del raco. Inc. ,46 cal.4th 661 (cal. 2009). Apparently, under california state law, an individual who has an ADA claim may also obtain damages under the Unruh Act. Id. Mr. pierce argues that he is also entitled to relief in this court under the APA, which according to Mr. pierce, gives this court jurisdiction to review the decisions of other federal couns. ln its motion to dismiss, the govemment argues that this court lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Pierce's state-law damage claims and over his claims based on the ApA. This court has reviewed all of the pleadings and briefs filed by the parties and finds for the reasons that follow that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. First, this court lacks jurisdiction over actions arising under the Unruh Act because "'[c]laims founded on state law are also outside the scope of the limited jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims."' Waltnerv.UnitedStat€s,98Fed. C1.737,764(Fed.Cl.2011), af?d,679 F.3d 1329(Fed. Cir.2012) (citing Souders v. South Carolina Pub. Serv. Auth. ,497 F.3d 1303, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Second, to the extent Mr. Pierce is claiming a right to damages stemming from violations of the federal ADA, his complaint also must be dismissed because the ADA does not apply to the federal govemment, and thus this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over an ADA claim. Allen v. United States,546F. App'x.949,951 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Searles v. United States, 88 Fed. Cl. 801, 805 (2009)). The ADA provides that "no qualified individual with a disability shall by reason ofsuch disability, be excluded from participation . . . services, programs, or activities of a public entity or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity." 42 U.S.C. $ 12132. A,,public entity,, is defined as "(A) any State, or local government; (B) any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State... or local government ...." 42 u.s.c. $ 12131(l). The ADA is not applicable to the tax court, the united states District court for the Eastern District of califomia, or any other federal government entity because the ADA definition of "public entity" includes only state and local govemment entities. Gray v. United States, 69 Fed. cl. 95, 101 n.5 (2005); United states v. wishart, 146 F. App'x. 171 (9th cir. 2005). In such circumstances, there has not been a waiver of sovereign immunity for claims against the United states under the ADA and the case must be dismissed. Gray, 69 Fed. Cl. at 102. Finally, this court does not have jurisdiction to hear plaintiff s case under the APA. Contrary to plaintiff s contentions, the APA does not provide for review of the actions of other federal courts. By its plain language, the APA provides only for review of "agency action," which does not include decisions of the tax court or federal iudiciarv.t 5 u.s.c. 5 702. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the govemment's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under RCFC l2(bXl) is GRANTED.2 The clerk is directed to enrer judgment accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED. ' The APA reads, in relevant part: (b) For the purpose of this chapter-- (l) "agency" means each authority of the Govemment of the United States, whether or not it is within or subject to review by another agency, but does not include- (B) the courts of the United Stares . . . . 5 U.S.C. $ 701. 2 In addition, plaintiffhas filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for sanctions. court hereby GRANTS the in forma pauperis appli"ation fo. the purpose of _This resolving this motion. While the motion for sanctiooidols specify the conduct alleged not to have violated plaintiffs rights, an order from the tax court dismissing plaintilps case foi iack of prosecution is attached to the motion. Because this court does not hivl lurisdiction over plaintifPs case, the motion for sanctions must be DENIED as well. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2717833. Public record. Not legal advice.