Jerome Victor Trafny v. United States

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2007-5050
JEROME VICTOR TRAFNY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee.
Jerome Victor Trafny, of Tucson, Arizona, pro se.
Matthew H. Solomson, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. On the
brief were Peter D. Keisler, Acting Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and
Brian M. Simkin, Assistant Director.
Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims
Judge George W. Miller

-- 1 of 4 --

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2007-5050
JEROME VICTOR TRAFNY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee.
___________________________
DECIDED: October 2, 2007
___________________________
Before BRYSON, Circuit Judge, CLEVENGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and MOORE,
Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION
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 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.

-- 2 of 4 --

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.
2

-- 3 of 4 --

3
200, 214 (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.

-- 4 of 4 --