Kapurani v. United States

3Tn tbe Wniteb ~tates ~ourt of jfeberal ~laims

No. 17-956C (Pro Se)

(Filed: October 3, 2017 Not for Publication)

J

) Keywords: Pro Se Complaint; Subject

DIMITRJ KAPURANI, ) Matter Jurisdiction; RCFC 12(b)(l).

)

Plaintiff, ) FILED

)

v. ) OCT - 3 2017

)

U.S. COURT OF

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERJCA, ) FEDERAL CLAIMS

)

Defendant. )

~~~~~~~~~~)

Dimitri Kapurani, Streamwood, IL, pro se.

Sonia Marie Orfield, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S.

Department of Justice, Washington, DC, with whom were Lisa L. Donahue, Assistant

Director, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Director, and Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant

Attorney General, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

KAPLAN, Judge.

This case is cunently before the Court on the government's motion to dismiss for

lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(l) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims

(RCFC) or in the alternative pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The

plaintiff in this case, Dimitri Kapurani, acting pro se, has filed a complaint against the

United States seeking an award to him of $50,000,000.

Mr. Kapurani's complaint offers very little detail regarding the nature of his

claims. He appears to allege that he has been improperly hospitalized in state mental

institutions more than fifteen times since he was a child. Comp!. at 1-2, Docket No . 1. He

also asserts that he has been "tortured by the president who was born at [Q]ueen

Kapiolani Medical [C]enter for [W]omen and [C]hildren," which the Court takes as a

reference to President Obama, whom he also claims "wr[o]te abusive speeches" about

him. Id. Mr. Kapurani further alleges that he was raped by a doctor, apparently while he

was in a Kaiser Permanente medical facility in California. Id.

In deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the court

accepts as true all undisputed facts in the pleadings and draws all reasonable inferences in

favor of the plaintiff. Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159, 1163

(Fed. Cir. 2011). However, the court may also "inquire into jurisdictional facts" to

7017 1450 DODD 6959 9627

determine whether it has jurisdiction. Rocovich v. United States, 933 F.2d 991, 993 (Fed.

Cir. 1991). It is well established that complaints filed by prose plaintiffs (as is this one),

are held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Haines v.

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Nonetheless, even prose plaintiffs must persuade the

Court that jurisdictional requirements have been met. Bernard v. United States, 59 Fed.

CL 497, 499 (2004), affd, 98 Fed. App'x 860 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

The Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction under the Tucker Act to hear "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. § 149l(a)(l) (2006). The Tucker Act waives the sovereign

immunity of the United States to allow a suit for money damages, United States v.

Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983), but it does not confer any substantive rights. United

States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976). Therefore, a plaintiff seeking to invoke the

court's Tucker Act jurisdiction must identify an independent source of a substantive right

to money damages from the United States arising out of a contract, statute, regulation or

constitutional provision. Jan's Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d

1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

In this case, Mr. Kapurani has failed to identify a source of a substantive right to

damages based on his claim. Thus, to the extent that Mr. Kapurani's claims concerning

his institutionalization (including his allegation of rape) are based on the actions of state

employees or private actors, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider them because the

Tucker Act applies only to suits against the United States. See United States v.

Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) ("[I]fthe relief sought is against others than the

United States the suit as to them must be ignored as beyond the jurisdiction of the

court."). And assuming that Mr. Kapurani's claims that President Obama "tortured" him

could be construed as claims that his rights under the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth

Amendment's Due Process Clause, or the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments were

violated, this Court lacks jurisdiction over such claims as well because those

constitutional provisions are not money-mandating. Trafny v. United States, 503 F.3d

1339, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Eighth Amendment); Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621,

623 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Fourth Amendment); Crocker v. United States, 125 F.3d 1475,

1476 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause); LeBlanc v. United

States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses

of Fourteenth Amendment). Finally, Mr. Kapurani's claims that President Obama wrote

abusive speeches about him are also outside of this Court's jurisdiction because they

sound in tort, and this Court lacks jurisdiction over tort claims. Keene Coro. v. United

States, 508 U.S. 200, 214 (1993).

2

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the government's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and

Plaintiffs' claims are DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. 1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ELAINE D. KAPLAN

Judge

1 Mr. Kapurani has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Docket No. 4, which

the Court GRANTS solely for purposes of ruling on the government's motion to dismiss.

Further, the Court has received an additional document from Mr. Kapurani, which the

Court will treat as a response to the government's motion. The document shall be filed by

the Court's leave.

3