In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 20-168C

(Pro Se)

(Filed: April 30, 2020 | Not for Publication)

A.R. MORENO,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 

A.R. Moreno, Aurora, IL, pro se. 

David M. Kerr, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department 

of Justice, Washington, DC, with whom were Reginald T. Blades, Jr., Assistant Director, Robert 

E. Kirschman, Jr., Director, and Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, for Defendant. 

OPINION AND ORDER

KAPLAN, Judge. 

On February 19, 2020, pro se Plaintiff A.R. Moreno filed a complaint in this court

alleging causes of action against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) for “fail[ing] to 

uphold their Oath of Offices, act[ing] dishonorably, negligently[,] and abus[ing] raw data 

collected through intelligence harvesting mechanisms.” Compl. at 2, Docket No. 1. On the same 

date, Plaintiff Moreno also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 4. On 

March 19, 2020, the government filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules 

of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) based on lack of subject-matter 

jurisdiction. Docket No. 7.

For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff Moreno’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis is GRANTED. However, because the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the

complaint, the government’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the case will be dismissed in 

its entirety. 

I. Plaintiff’s Application 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 
2

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 that the question is whether “paying such 

fees would constitute a serious hardship on the plaintiff”) (internal quotation and citations

omitted). 

Plaintiff Moreno claims an amount of “$0.00” dollars in cash or in a checking or savings 

account. Pl.’s Appl. To Proceed In Forma Pauperis at 2. Plaintiff does not list monthly expenses 

but indicates an outstanding loan balance of $36,431.31. Id. Plaintiff Moreno is currently 

unemployed. Id. at 1. Under these circumstances, Plaintiff Moreno has sufficiently demonstrated 

an inability to pay the court’s filing fee. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is 

therefore GRANTED.

II. The Government’s Motion To Dismiss

In considering 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). 

The Court may, however, “inquire into jurisdictional facts” to 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 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). 

Plaintiff Moreno has not filed a response to the government’s motion to dismiss, which 

was due by April 16, 2020. Nevertheless, 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); Rick’s 

Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d 1338, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2008); 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 considered the complaint and the government’s motion, the 

Court finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and is obligated to dismiss the case on that 

ground. 

The Tucker Act grants the United States Court of Federal Claims 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). Plaintiff’s complaint alleges negligence and abuse in the 

collection of intelligence data. Compl. at 2. Such claims sound in tort and are therefore beyond 

this Court’s jurisdiction. See Souders v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth., 497 F.3d 1303, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 

 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). 
3

2007) (holding that negligence claims sounded in tort and, thus, were “clearly outside the limited 

jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims”); Naskar v. United States, 82 Fed. Cl. 319, 321 

(2008) (“Because plaintiff’s claim is for damages due to negligence, it sounds in tort and the 

Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over it.”). Likewise, the Court lacks 

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims that individuals at the FBI failed to abide by their oaths of 

office. Nalette v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 198, 202 (2006) (finding that allegations that 

government officials “breached their oath of office sounds in tort”). 

Furthermore, the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the nonmonetary relief Plaintiff Moreno 

seeks. The Court cannot “[d]issolve the FBI entirely” nor direct FBI officials to issue 

“[h]and[]written and typed statement[s] of apology.” Compl. at 3. See United States v. Tohono 

O’Odham Nation, 563 U.S. 307, 313 (2011) (explaining that the Court of Federal Claims “has no 

general power to provide equitable relief against the Government or its officers”). Therefore, 

Plaintiff Moreno’s complaint must be DISMISSED.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is 

GRANTED and Plaintiff Moreno’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk 

shall enter judgment accordingly. Each side shall bear its own costs. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Elaine D. Kaplan ELAINE D. KAPLAN

Judge