Background
Shanya K. Moore, proceeding without counsel, sued the United States alleging that members of the military caused her extensive injuries. Her complaint identified claims for defamation, libel, slander, intentional torts, assault, battery, and false imprisonment, and expressly stated that her claim fell under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Moore also submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis that did not comply with the Court of Federal Claims’ rules. The government moved to dismiss.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Elaine D. Kaplan dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Tucker Act gives the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over specified claims against the United States that do not sound in tort, and therefore excludes Federal Tort Claims Act claims and other tort claims.
Although pro se pleadings receive less stringent treatment, Moore still had to establish jurisdiction. The court accepted her defective in forma pauperis submission for purposes of resolving the case and granted it, but held it was required to dismiss once it determined jurisdiction was absent. It denied the government’s dismissal motion as moot.
Key Takeaways
- The Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over Federal Tort Claims Act claims.
- Tort claims, including claims alleging assault, battery, defamation, and false imprisonment, cannot proceed under the Tucker Act in that court.
- Pro se status does not excuse a plaintiff from satisfying subject-matter-jurisdiction requirements.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that plaintiffs alleging torts by federal employees or military personnel must file in a court with jurisdiction over FTCA claims, rather than in the Court of Federal Claims. A dismissal without prejudice leaves Moore free to pursue any claims in an appropriate forum, subject to applicable procedural and limitations rules.