Filed: Jul. 08, 2016
Latest Update: Jul. 08, 2016
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION ORDER OF DISMISSAL NANCY B. FIRESTONE , Senior Judge . Pending before the court is the United States' motion to dismiss and opposition to plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. 1 The government argues that this court does not have jurisdiction over plaintiff's case and thus the case must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims. For the reasons discussed below, the court agrees
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION ORDER OF DISMISSAL NANCY B. FIRESTONE , Senior Judge . Pending before the court is the United States' motion to dismiss and opposition to plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. 1 The government argues that this court does not have jurisdiction over plaintiff's case and thus the case must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims. For the reasons discussed below, the court agrees w..
More
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
NANCY B. FIRESTONE, Senior Judge.
Pending before the court is the United States' motion to dismiss and opposition to plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.1 The government argues that this court does not have jurisdiction over plaintiff's case and thus the case must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims. For the reasons discussed below, the court agrees with the government.2
Plaintiffs have the burden of establishing this court's jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., Fid. & Guar. Ins. Underwriters. Inc. v. United States, 805 F.3d 1082, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Brandt v. United States, 710 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir.2013); Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). Pro se plaintiffs are held to less stringent pleading standards but must still demonstrate that the court has jurisdiction to hear their claim. See Matthews v. United States, 750 F.3d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).
Although the court has found it nearly impossible to follow the plaintiff's complaint and other filings, it is clear that plaintiff has captioned his case as a suit involving an admiralty contract.3 The Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C. § § 30901-30918, and the Public Vessels Act, 46 U.S.C. §§ 31101-31113, govern admiralty claims against the government. These statutes preserve the traditional exclusive jurisdiction of the federal district courts over admiralty or maritime cases. See also 28 U.S.C. § 1333 (providing for federal district court jurisdiction as opposed to state court jurisdiction for "any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction"); El-Shifa Pharm. Indus. Co. v. United States, 378 F.3d 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1333 "grant[s] exclusive and original jurisdiction to federal district courts over civil cases in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction"). The scope of the district courts' admiralty jurisdiction extends "to contracts that are `wholly maritime' in nature." Marine Logistics, Inc. v. England, 265 F.3d 1322, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also L-3 Servs., Inc. v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 30, 33 (2012). Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's complaint as an action involving admiralty. The court further finds that none of the other statutory provisions plaintiff cites in his complaint and filings support a finding of jurisdiction.
Because this court lacks jurisdiction, plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED.4 The clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
