De La O v. United States

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 21-1609C

(Filed: August 9, 2021)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

)

PAUL MARK DE LA O, JR., )

)

Plaintiff, ) Pro Se Complaint; Sua Sponte

) Dismissal for Want of

v. ) Jurisdiction, RCFC 12(h)(3);

) Transfer Not Warranted; Anti-

THE UNITED STATES, ) Filing Injunction.

)

Defendant. )

)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Currently before the court in this case are pro se plaintiff’s July 21, 2021

complaint, see ECF No. 1, and plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

(IFP), see ECF No. 7. Because the court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims, the

court must dismiss this case sua sponte pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) of the Rules of the

United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). See RCFC 12(h)(3) (“If the court

determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the

action.”). The court’s jurisdictional analysis is set forth below.

I. Background

Plaintiff’s complaint is set forth on the court’s pro se complaint form, the

statement of the claim states, as follows:

The inconsideration for all human life is evidential in how the United States

is publicly endangering all of (America’s) lives by permitting such measures

and/or failling to implement all necessary protocol in assuring all actions are

taken in security eradication of said illness of which has already infected over

31 MILION Americans! It is implications of which constitutes accomplices

to genocide liability as all of these establishments and/or inoculations are

intentionally and recklessly inflicting a product for an illness of which has

been inevitably been contributing to deaths (over $500,000!) and improperly

handling all measures essential in implementing absolute assurance in overall

effectiveness and safety prior to redistribution! It is actions of these of which

inflict on the line of accomplice to genocide liability especially in the fact

that many of the accused individuals and/or establishments involved with

said production and/or distribution of inoculations have advanced

pharmaceutical degrees and/or medical degrees know the potential risks and

hazards involved with releasing a drug to the certainty of the medicine being

assured of it’s effectiveness! It is intentional and willful actions like these

contributing to an illness (corona virus, COVID-19) of which is easily able

to be identified as a genocide up to this point! Complicity in genocide

indistinguishably! It is illegality!

ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff requests that the court “legally hold responsible all the

individuals of the White House our president, US senate, House of Representatives, and

every other division of our American government who is responsible for such inflictions

of crime and disgusting acts towards society!” Id. at 3. Attached to plaintiff’s complaint

is a thirty-eight-page document in which he alleges this court’s jurisdiction is based on

the fact that he has “been abused lied to and neglected as a result of the White House’s

actions,” and continues the statement of his claim. See ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiff seeks a

monetary award in the amount of $130,000,000. Id. at 38.

Including this case, plaintiff has filed a total of four suits in this court alleging

claims against the government for mishandling of the Coronavirus Disease 2019

(coronavirus), two of which have been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

See De La O v. United States, Case No. 21-1329 (complaint against a number of

government agencies alleging coronavirus mishandling claims, dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction on July 27, 2021); De La O v. United States, Case No. 21-1330 (complaint

against the Federal Communications Commission alleging coronavirus mishandling

claims, dismissed for failure to prosecute on June 24, 2021, and, on August 2, 2021,

motion to reconsider denied noting that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to

consider the case). Two of the four cases remain pending in this court. See De La O v.

United States, Case No. 21-1609 (this matter); De La O v. United States, Case No. 21-

1622 (complaint against the Federal Communications Commission alleging coronavirus

mishandling claims).

I. Legal Standards

The court acknowledges that pro se plaintiffs are not expected to frame issues with

the precision of a common law pleading. Roche v. USPS, 828 F.2d 1555, 1558 (Fed. Cir.

1987). Therefore, plaintiff’s complaint has been reviewed carefully to ascertain whether,

given the most favorable reading, it supports jurisdiction in this court.

“A court may and should raise the question of its jurisdiction sua sponte at any

time it appears in doubt.” Arctic Corner, Inc. v. United States, 845 F.2d 999, 1000 (Fed.

2

Cir. 1988) (citation omitted). The Tucker Act delineates this court’s jurisdiction. See 28

U.S.C. § 1491. That statute “confers jurisdiction upon the Court of Federal Claims over

the specified categories of actions brought against the United States.” Fisher v. United

States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations omitted). These include

“claims for money damages against the United States ‘founded either upon the

Constitution, 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.’” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1)).

III. Analysis

A. Lack of Jurisdiction

The narrative of plaintiff’s complaint is somewhat difficult to follow, but the

central claim appears to assert that the federal government mishandled its response to the

coronavirus pandemic, and has intentionally or recklessly “inflicted” a dangerous vaccine

on the public. ECF No. 1 at 2. Such claims sound in tort, and are beyond the scope of

this court’s jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); Keene Corp. v. United States, 508

U.S. 200, 214) (1993) (“[T]ort cases are outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal

Claims.”); see also Godfrey v. United States, 131 Fed. Cl. 111, 121-22 (2017) (noting

that “a typical tort involves an intentional act resulting in harm,” and finding that a claim

that defendant poisoned plaintiff’s water was a tort claim outside this court’s jurisdiction)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

To the extent that plaintiff means to allege claims against individual federal

officials that were in charge of responding to the coronavirus pandemic, this court also

lacks jurisdiction to consider such claims. “The Tucker Act grants the Court of Federal

Claims jurisdiction over suits against the United States, not against individual federal

officials.” Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Indeed,

allegations of “wrongful conduct by governmental officials in their official capacity are

tort claims over which the United States Court of Federal Claims does not have

jurisdiction.” Sindram v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 788, 792 (2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. §

1346(b)). For these reasons, the court is without jurisdiction to consider the merits of

plaintiff’s case.

B. Transfer

Because the court has concluded that it lacks jurisdiction in this case, it must

consider whether transfer to a court with jurisdiction is in the interests of justice:

[w]henever a civil action is filed in [this] court . . . and [this] court finds that

there is a want of jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is in the interest of justice,

transfer such action or appeal to any other such court . . . in which the action

or appeal could have been brought at the time it was filed or noticed . . .

3

28 U.S.C. § 1631. Here, plaintiff’s complaint is too incoherent to allow the court to

determine either whether transfer would serve the interests of justice in this case, or to

which court a transfer would be made. As such, the court concludes that transfer is not

warranted.

IV. Conclusion

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons:

(1) Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed IFP, ECF No. 7, is GRANTED for

the limited purpose of determining jurisdiction;

(2) The clerk’s office is directed to ENTER final judgment DISMISSING

plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, without

prejudice, pursuant to RCFC 12(h)(3);

(3) The clerk’s office is further directed to RETURN any future filings not in

compliance with this court’s rules to plaintiff, UNFILED, without further

order of the court;

(4) The court CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal

from this order would not be taken in good faith because, as alleged,

plaintiff’s claims are clearly beyond the subject matter of this court; and,

(5) Because plaintiff has repeatedly filed complaints which needlessly consume

the resources of the court, the court hereby ENTERS the following anti-

filing injunction:

Paul Mark De La O, Jr. is immediately ENJOINED from

filing any new complaints with this Court without first

obtaining leave from the Chief Judge of the United States Court

of Federal Claims to do so. Any motion for leave to file must

include as an attachment a full complaint that meets all of the

requirements of RCFC 8; in particular the complaint must

identify the source of law supporting this court’s jurisdiction

over the claims asserted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Patricia E. Campbell-Smith

PATRICIA E. CAMPBELL-SMITH

Judge

4