WILLIAMS v. USA

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 25-2064
(Filed: January 8, 2026)
ORDER
Christopher Williams, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint in this court on December 4,
2025. Compl., Docket No. 1. Subsequently, Mr. Williams filed an application to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”). Mot. to Proceed IFP [hereinafter “IFP Mot.”], Docket No. 6. In his
Complaint, Mr. Williams claims he is entitled to monetary damages for alleged violations of the
First Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, and Mr. Williams’ due process rights. Compl. at 5.
For the reasons that follow, Mr. Williams’ application to proceed in forma pauperis is
GRANTED. However, because the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Mr. Williams’
claim, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
DISCUSSION
I. 	Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), “any court of the United States may authorize the
commencement . . . of any suit, action or proceeding . . . without prepayment of fees or security
therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement . . . that the person is
unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.”1 A plaintiff does not have to “be absolutely
destitute to enjoy the benefit of the statute.” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S.
331, 339 (1948). An affidavit that demonstrates that a plaintiff is unable to pay the fee or give
security and still provide for himself and any dependents is sufficient. See id.; see also Waltner
v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 139, 143 (2010) (stating the question is whether “paying such fees
would constitute a serious hardship on the plaintiff” (quoting Fiebelkorn v. United States, 77
Fed. Cl. 59, 62 (2007)).
1 For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court of Federal Claims is a court of the United States.
28 U.S.C. § 2503(d).
Case 1:25-cv-02064-EDK Document 9 Filed 01/08/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Here, Mr. Williams submitted all forms required as a prisoner seeking to proceed in
forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). Mr. Williams represents that he currently possesses
only $0.90 and receives only $10 per month. IFP Mot. at 1–2. Under these circumstances, Mr.
Williams has sufficiently demonstrated that he is unable to pay the court’s pre-filing fees.
Notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Williams has satisfied the criteria, prisoners seeking to
proceed in forma pauperis are required to pay, in installments over time, the filing fee in full. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(b). Thus, Mr. Williams shall be assessed, as a partial payment of the court’s filing
fee, an initial sum of twenty percent of the greater of either (1) the average monthly deposits into
his account, or (2) the average monthly balance in his account for the six-month period
immediately preceding the filing of his Complaint. Id. § 1915(b)(1). Thereafter, Mr. Williams
shall be required to make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income
credited to his account. Id. § 1915(b)(2). The agency with custody of Mr. Williams shall forward
payments from his account to the Clerk of the Court of Federal Claims each time the account
balance exceeds $10.00 and until such time as the filing fee is paid in full. Id.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED, subject
to his obligation to pay the filing fee in full pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).
II. 	Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
It is well established that complaints filed by pro se plaintiffs are held to “less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972). Nonetheless, even pro se plaintiffs must persuade the Court that jurisdictional
requirements have been met. Harris v. United States, 113 Fed. Cl. 290, 292 (2013). Furthermore,
the Court has an independent obligation to satisfy itself of its jurisdiction. See Arbaugh v. Y&H
Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506–07, 514 (2006); see also RCFC 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at
any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). Having
reviewed the Complaint, the Court finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and must dismiss
the case on that ground.
The United States Court of Federal Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction. The Tucker
Act grants the court the power “to render judgment upon any claim against the United States
founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive
department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or
unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). It serves as a
waiver of sovereign immunity and a jurisdictional grant, but it does not create a substantive
cause of action. Jan’s Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed.
Cir. 2008). A plaintiff, therefore, “must identify a separate source of substantive law that creates
the right to money damages.” Id. (quoting Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed.
Cir. 2005)); Rick’s Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(“[T]he plaintiff must look beyond the Tucker Act to identify a substantive source of law that
creates the right to recovery of money damages against the United States.” (citing United States
v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 216 (1983))).
Mr. Williams’ claims do not fall within this Court’s limited jurisdiction. First, the United
States is the only proper defendant in the Court of Federal Claims. See, e.g., United States v.
Case 1:25-cv-02064-EDK Document 9 Filed 01/08/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941). Further, to the extent that Mr. Williams is alleging one or
more violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Court of Federal Claims lacks
jurisdiction over such claims. See, e.g., Elkins v. United States, 229 Ct. Cl. 607, 608 (1981).
Moreover, Mr. Williams has not identified any money-mandating source of substantive
law giving him a right to money damages, as required for Tucker Act jurisdiction. See Jan’s
Helicopter Serv., 525 F.3d at 1306. His claims involve potential First and Eighth Amendment
violations, as well as possible due process violations. Because none of these sources of law is
money-mandating, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Mr. Williams’
claims. See, e.g., Jordan v. United States, 128 Fed. Cl. 46, 53–54 (2016) (explaining Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendment due process claims, as well as Eighth Amendment claims, are not
money-mandating).
For these reasons, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Mr. Williams’ claims.
Accordingly, Mr. Williams’ Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk shall
enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ELAINE D. KAPLAN
Judge
Case 1:25-cv-02064-EDK Document 9 Filed 01/08/26 Page 3 of 3