Grant v. United States

ORI$ENAL

lln tlle @nftr! btsttg tourt of ftDtrul @tsimg

No. 13-473C

(Filed January 7, 201,4)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

FILED

JAN 7 ?014

***************rk*r< U.S. COUHT OF

FEDERAL CLAIMS

DESHORIE EVADNE GRANT.

Plaintifl

THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

****rr*********J<*

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

WOLSKI, Judge.

The matter before the court is the defendant's September 12,2013 motion to

dismiss this case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12O)(1) of

the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). For the reasons

discussed below, the defendant's motion is GRANTED due to the plaintiffs failure

to state a claim within this court's iurisdiction.

I. BACKGROUND

The plaintiff alleges a variety of claims against employers, union offrciais, co-

workers, her ex-husband, his attorney, police officers, a judge, federal agencies, and

numerous unnamed persons.l The plaintiff first asserts mistreatment at her former

I The complaint's caption names ten parties as purported defendants --- the "United

States Department of Labor," "United States Department of Internal Revenue

Service," "United States Department of Treasury," "United States Department of

Justice," "United States Department of Adjudication and Review," "Federal Trade

Commission," "FederaI Deposit Insurance CIaims," "United States Bankruptcy

Court," "United States Department of Veteran Affairs," and "United States Postal

Inspector." See Compl. at 1. Most of these are not mentioned beyond the caption

place of employment, a division of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). She alleges

that her pay and grade were reduced after harassment by union officials and

management; that she was fired from her position without due process; that she

was banned from the building after voluntarily surrendering her credentials; that

she was not paid workers' compensation after an accident; and that co-workers and

administrators falsified documents affecting her pay and resulting in back taxes

and a lien against her children's savings. Compl. 2-5.

The plaintiff continues by alleging criminal conduct by various individuals,

including theft from her retirement savings; murder by hire ofher husband; theft of

her husband's identity, earnings, pension, other benefrts, and bank account funds;

false imprisonment; and kidnapping. Id. at 5-13. She also complains that her

children were taken from her custody; that she was subjected to an involuntary

mental examination; that her ex-husband's attorney interfered with her appearance

at a custody hearing; that the police were hired to give her a speeding ticket; and

that she did not get a fair trial or proper defense. Id. at l3-L9.

The plaintiff next directs her attention to alleged misconduct by numerous

federal agencies. She claims that she was hired to spy at the Office of Disability

Adjudication and Review (ODAR) where she observed various improprieties and

had her pay wrongfully appropriated by others; that the National Security

Administration has been wiretapping her; and that the Federal Trade Commission

has altered her and her allegedly deceased spouse's credit reports.,Id. at 19-21. She

alleges that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development improperly

processed mortgages, wrongly approved subdivisions, misapplied taxes, failed to

inspect schools and subdivisions, allowed unjust foreclosures and violations of

building codes, and discriminated against her in employment and prevented her

from "becoming an occupant" in public housing. Id. at 2l-24. Finally, she accuses

the Federal Reserve of complicity in the "largest theft and the Iargest transfer of

funds on record in U.S. Historv." Id. 25-26.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Governing Legal Standards

Under RCFC 12(b)(1), claims brought before this court must be dismissed

when it is shown that the court lacks jurisdiction over their subject matter. When

considering a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, courts will

normally accept as true all factual allegations made by the pleader and draw all

and many of the allegations in the complaint are directed toward parties not named

in the caption, but in any event the United States is the only properly-named

defendant in complaints filed in our court. See RCFC IO(a); Gharb u. (Jnited States,

No. 12-911C, 2013 WL 4828589, at*2,*5 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 9, 2018).

-2-

reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to that party. See Scheuer u.

Rhodes,416 U.S. 232, 236 (197 4); Hxton u. B&B Plastics, Inc., 29L F.3d 1324, 1326

(Fed. Cir. 2002) (requiring that on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter

jurisdiction the court views "the alleged facts in the complaint as true, and if the

facts reveal any reasonable basis upon which the non-movant may prevail,

dismissal is inappropriate"); CBY Design Builders u. United Srores, 105 Fed. Cl.

303,325 (2Or2).

While a pro se plaintiffs filings are to be liberally construed, see Erichson u.

Pardus,551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), this lenient standard cannot save claims which are

outside the court's jurisdiction from being dismissed, see, e.g., Henhe u. United

States, 60 F.3d 795, 799 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The party invoking a court's jurisdiction

bears the burden of establishing it, and must ultimately do so by a preponderance of

the evidence. See McNutt u. GMAC,298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936): Reynolds u. Army &

Air Force Erch. Seru., 846 F.2d 7 46, 7 48 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Rocouich u. United States,

933 F.2d 991, 993 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

The jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims is governed by the Tucker Act,

which gives this court the authority to render judgment on claims seeking monetary

damages against the United States. 28 U.S.C. S I49l et seq.; United States u.

Mitchell,463 U.S. 206, 215-18 (1983). Because the Tucker Act does not create any

substantive rights, a plaintiff must identify a separate source oflaw that creates a

right to money damages for her claim to be within the court's jurisdiction. Joz's

Helicopter Seru., Inc. v. FAA,525 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir.2008) (quoting Fisher u.

United States,402 F.3d 1767, lI7 2 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc in relevant part));

Mitchell,463 U.S. at 216. The test for determining whether a statute or regulation

can support jurisdiction in this court is whether it can be fairly interpreted as

mandating compensation. See, e.g., United Sta,tes u. White Mountain Apache Tribe,

537 U.S. 465, 472-73 (2OOB); Mitchell, 463 U.S. at 216-17; Fisher u. United States,

402 F.3d 1167 , ll73-7 4 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Contreras u. United States, 64 Fed. CI. 583,

588-92 (2005). Additionally, because the Tucker Act performs a gap-frlling

function, it does not provide jurisdiction over certian claims when Congress has

"prescribed a different, specific avenue for review." King u. United States, 112 Fed.

Cl. 396, 399 (2013) (citing United States u. Borm.es, 133 S. Ct. 12, 18 (2OI2)).

B. Analysis

The government has moved to dismiss this case under RCFC 12(b)(1),

arguing that the complaint contains no claims within the jurisdiction ofthis court.

The plaintiff has not fiIed any opposition to the government's motion,2 and for that

2 After the initial deadline for the plaintiffs response had passed, the Court issued

an order sua sponte extending the time period in which the plaintiffcould respond

to the government's motion and advising the plaintiff that failure to oppose could

-3-

reason alone the Court may grant the motion. In light ofthe plaintiffs pro se

status, however, the Court has reviewed the complaint to determine whether there

are there are any facts alleged therein that may bring this case within our

jurisdiction.

As the government correctly argues in its motion to dismiss, our court lacks

jurisdiction over the plaintiffs claims relating to adverse personnel actions taken

while she was working at the DOL. The Merit Systems Protection Board and

Federal Circuit have exclusive jurisdiction over such claims. United States u.

Fausto,484 U.S. 439, 449 (1988); Socco u. United, States, 63 Fed. Cl. 424, 428 (2004).

The plaintiffs allegations that she was fired without due process are also barred

because the constitutional provisions guaranteeing due process are not money

mandating. LeBlanc u. United States,50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995);

McCullough u. United States,76 Fed. Cl. 1, 4-5 (2006).3 With regard to the

plaintiffs claim that she was wrongfully denied veterans benefits apparently earned

by her ex-husband, this court is similarly without jurisdiction. Such matters have

been entrusted to the Court ofAppeals for Veterans Affairs (CAVC), once the

administrative remedies of the Department of Veterans Affairs have been

exhausted. See Ledford u. West,136 F.3d 776,782 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (requiring

exhaustion of administrative remedies); Addington u. United States,94 Fed. Cl. 779,

782 (2010) (holding that CAVC possesses exclusive jurisdiction over appeals to

veterans benefit determinations); see also 38 U.S.C. $$ 511, 7252(a).

This court has no authority to adjudicate criminal matters with the limited

exception of awarding compensation in cases of false imprisonment . McCullough,

76 Fed. Cl. at 4 ("[T]his court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate criminal claims."). C/.

28 U.S.C. $ 1495 (allowing "claim[s] for damages by any person unjustly convicted of

an offense against the United States and imprisoned"). In the case of false

imprisonment a plaintiff is required, however, to "allege and prove that . . . [h]is

conviction has been reversed or set aside on the ground that he is not guilty ofthe

offense of which he was convicted, or on new trial or rehearing he was found not

guilty of such offense, as appears from the record or certificate of the court setting

aside or reversing such conviction, or that he has been pardoned upon the stated

ground of innocence and unjust conviction." Salman u. United States, 69 Fed. CI.

36, 39 (2005) (quoting 28 U.S.C. 5 2513(a)). The plaintiff has made no such

allegation or offer of proof.

The plaintiff s claims of tortious wrongdoing --- by employees of the DOL,

IRS, and ODAR, co-workers, and various other individuals --- also faII outside ofthe

result in dismissal of her action. Order of Oct 23, 2013, ECF No. 5.

3 OnIy in the limited circumstance of an alleged illegal exaction may a due process

violation come within the jurisdiction ofthis court. See Aerolineas Argentinas u.

United States,77 F.3d 1564, 1572-73 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

-4-

jurisdiction ofthis court. see 28 u.S.c. s 1491(a)(1) (granting our court jurisdiction

"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

Iiquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding ln lorl" (emphasis

added)); Stephenson u. United States,58 Fed. CI. 186, 190 (2003) (citrr'g Utuited

States u. Sherwood,312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941)) (" [T]he only propet defendant for any

matter before this court is the United States, not its officers, nor any other

individual."). Likewise, the court lacks jurisdiction over any of plaintiffs claims

that a federal agency or its employees "engaged in negligent, fraudulent, or other

wrongful conduct when discharging . . . official duties." Cottrell u. United States,42

Fed. CI. 144, 149 (1998).

Finally, the plaintiffs allegations of discrimination are within the province of

the district courts. This court has no jurisdiction over civil rights claims. Id. at

149-50 (,,As courts have repeatedly held, there is no Tucker Act jurisdiction in the

Court ofFederal Claims to entertain claims involving race, sex, and age

discrimination or other claims involving civil rights violations.").

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the defendant's motion to dismiss this case for

failure to state a claim within this court's jurisdiction under RCFC 12@)(1) is

GRANTED. The Clerk shall close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

-5-