# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 22-1769

( Filed: March 10, 2023)

( NOT TO BE PUBLISHED)

_________ __________________________

S YLVANIUS BELL

,

P laintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES,

D efendant.

___________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

S ylvanius Bell, pro se , Washington, D.C.

Borislav Kushnir, Trial A ttorney, Commercial L itigation Branch, Civil D ivision, United

States D epartment of J ustice, Washington, D.C., for de fendant. Appearing w ith him on the

brief s were B rian M. Boynton, Principal D eputy Assistant A ttorney General, Civil D ivision,

Patricia M. M cCarthy, D irector, and Douglas K

. Mickle

, A ssistant Director, C ommercial Litigation B ranch, C ivi l Division, U nitedS tates D epa rtment of J ustice, Washington, D.C.

OP INION AND ORDER

LETTOW , Senior Judge

.

Mr. Sylvanius B ell f

iled a complaint i n this c ourt on November 29, 2022, r equest ing

“what is ow ed” to hi m “that is lis ted w ith the U nited

S tates D epartment of the T reasury.” Compl. ¶ 1, ECF N o. 1. His de mands the “release of [ his] m oney i nt he Treasury D epartment vi a wire t ransfer.” Compl. ¶ 5. With his c omplaint, Mr. Bell f iled a m otion to proceed i n forma pauperis. P l.’s Mot. for Leave t o Procee d I n Forma P auperis, ECF N o. 2. Because Mr. B ell pa id

the r equire d fees when he s ubmitted his c omplaint, the c ourt de nied as m oot hi s m otion to proceed i n forma pa

uperis. Order, ECF N o. 6 (Dec. 8, 2022).

The gove rnment then m ovedto di smiss Mr. B ell’s complaint, D ef.’ s Mot. t o D ismiss

Pursuant t o Rule 12( b)(1), ECF N o. 8, contending t hat M r. B ell ha s f ailed to identify a jurisdictional basis f

or hi s c laim. Id. at 1. Specifically, it contends tha t Mr. B ell’s c omplaint

fails to ide ntify any “constitutional pr ovision, st atute, r egulation, or c ontract that might entitle

him t o compensation” unde r t he T ucker A ct. Id. at 2.2 On March 6, 2023, Mr. Bell filed by the court’s leave a letter indicating he “cannot afford a lawyer” and requesting a hearing. Letter from Sylvaniu s Bell (“Bell’s letter”), ECF No. 10; see also Order of Mar. 6, 2023, ECF No. 9. Mr. Bell’s letter did not otherwise respond to the government’s motion to dismiss, and the deadline to file a response to the motion has passed. The government’s motion is ready for disposition.

STANDARDS FOR DECISION

The court must dismiss a claim over which it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See R ule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of F ederal Claims (“RCFC”) ; RCFC 12(h)(3) . A plaintiff bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over his claim. Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv. , 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988). While filings by pro se plaintiffs are “to be liberally construed” and “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Erickson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)) , this leniency “with respect

to mere formalitie s does not relieve them of jurisdictional requirements.” Landreth v. United

States , 797 F. App’x 521, 523 (Fed. Cir. 2020).

The Tucker Act confers this court jurisdiction over “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). Because the

Tucker Act does not establish substantive rights, a plaintiff seeking to establish this court’s jurisdiction under the act must “identify a substantive right for money damages against the United States separate from the Tucker Act itself. ” Todd v. United States , 386 F.3d 1091, 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2004)

.

This court may appoint an attorney “to represent any person unable to afford counsel,” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but should do so “only in civil cases that present an extreme hardship to petitioner.” Washington v. United States , 93 Fed. Cl. 706, 709 (2010). Such appointment “may be appropriate when quasi- criminal penalties or severe civil remedies are at stake, such as those in a civil commitment proceedi ng or when an indigent [person] risks losing his or her child in a custody case.” Washington , 93 Fed. Cl. at 708 ( citing Vitek v. Jones , 445 U.S. 480, 496-97 (1980) (civil commitment); Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. , 452 U.S. 18, 30-32 (1981) (child

cus tody)). But generally, the court should refrain from appointing counsel unless the case involves a potential deprivation of liberty. Wright v. United States , 701 F. App’x 967, 971 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ; see also Lassiter , 452 U.S. at 26-27 (indicating there is a “ presumption that an indigent litigant has a right to appointed counsel only when, if he loses, he may be deprived of his physical liberty ”).

DISCUSSION

Mr. Bell has not identified a source of law that entitles him to money damages. In his complaint u nder the heading “Statement of the Claim,” Mr. Bell avers only that he “understand[s] the United States Treasury Department has money in [his] name” and that he “want[s] to claim the amount from the Bureau of Fiscal Assets.” Compl. ¶ 4. In his letter, Mr. Bell describes a dispute involving his mother’s estate. Bell’s l etter. He cites no law or contract entitling him to the money he alleges the Treasury Department possesses , and his factual allegations do not establish this court’s3 jurisdiction. Put differently , Mr. Bell has not established this court’s subject matter jurisd iction by a preponderance of the evidence.

Regarding appointment of counsel, Mr. Bell seeks monetary damages and is not at risk of losing his physical liberty if his case is unsuccessful. See Compl. ¶ 4. In his complaint, Mr. Bell

requests only the “release” of his money “via wire transfer.” Com pl. ¶ 5. Mr. Bell restates this request in his March 6 l etter

. See Bell’s Letter. Mr. Bell’s circumstances do not amount to an extreme hardship that would entitle him to court

- appointed counsel.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly

, plaintiff’s request to be appoi nted an attorney and granted a hearing are DENIED. The government’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED

.

The Clerk shall dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction . The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the defendant

.

No costs.

It is so ORDERED

.

s/ Charles F. Lettow

Charles F. Lettow

Senior Judge