Trafny v. United States
Jerome Victor TRAFNY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee
Opinion
DECISION PER CURIAM.
Appellant Jerome Victor Trafny appeals from the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, No. 06-905C, dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because we agree with the trial *1340 court that Mr. Trafny’s complaint is not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491 , we affirm.
BACKGROUND Mr. Trafny is apparently an .inmate in a federal correctional institution. Although his complaint is difficult to understand, the trial court interpreted his complaint to be based on the contention that the Federal Bureau of Prisons has failed to provide him with the medicines he needs following eye surgery to treat his glaucoma. Claiming that he suffered injury to his eyesight as a result, he seeks damages in excess of $13 million.
The trial court interpreted his claim as being predicated on the cruel and unusual punishments clause of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. The court held that because the Eighth Amendment is not a “money-mandating” provision, it does not give rise to a cause of action over which the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction. The court further held that to the extent Mr. Trafny has raised a tort claim against the United States, the Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over tort claims. The court therefore dismissed Mr. Trafny’s complaint.
DISCUSSION The trial court was correct to dismiss the complaint. The Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over claims arising under the Eighth Amendment, as the Eighth Amendment “is not a money-mandating provision.”
Edelmann v. United States, 76 Fed.Cl. 376, 383 (2007);
Burman v. United States, 75 Fed.Cl. 727, 729 (2007);
Cosma-Nelms v. United States, 72 Fed.Cl. 170, 172 (2006);
Calhoun v. United States, 32 Fed.Cl. 400, 404-05 (1994). The court was also correct to hold that it lacks jurisdiction over tort claims.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (a)(1) (expressly excluding from the court’s jurisdiction claims “sounding in tort”);
Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200, 214 , 113 S.Ct. 2035 , 124 L.Ed.2d 118 (1993);
Jentoft v. United States, 450 F.3d 1342, 1349-50 (Fed.Cir.2006);
Alves v. United States, 133 F.3d 1454, 1459 (Fed.Cir.1998). Because all of Mr. Trafny’s claims are based on the Eighth Amendment or are essentially tort claims, the Court of Federal Claims lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this case, and we therefore affirm the court’s order dismissing the complaint.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 36 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that the Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over claims arising under the Eighth Amendment)
-
(holding that “[t]he trial court was correct to dismiss the complaint” because “[t]he Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over claims arising under the Eighth Amendment” at least with respect to “the cruel and unusual punishments clause”)
-
(explaining that the Tucker Act “expressly exclud[es] from the court’s jurisdiction claims ‘sounding in tort” (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1)))
-
(stating that the Eighth Amendment prohibitions of excessive bail or fines, as well as cruel and unusual punishment, are not money-mandating)
-
(the Court 1 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides: The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 2 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1)
-
(“The Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over claims arising under the Eighth Amendment, as the Eighth Amendment ‘is not a money-mandating provision.’” (quoting Edelmann v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 376, 383 (2007)))
Cited by 125 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.