# ORIGINAL 1f

# ntbe mtniteb**~tates** 

# <!Court ofjf 

# eberal <!Claims

No. 15-758C (Filed: November 12, 2015) 

### ************************************ * 

## * RICHARD G. FRIES,
Plaintiff,



### v. THE UNITED STATES, et al., 

## * * * * * * * * * Defendants. 

## * * ************************************ *
DISMISSAL ORDER 

# FILED Nov 1 22015 U

.S

. COURT FEDERAL 

### CLA:s

On July 20, 2015, pro se PlaintiffRichard Fries filed in this Court a complaint against the state ofFlorida, private hospitals, and doctors practicing in Florida. Mr. 

### Fries claims damages arising out of botched dental work. He alleges that various doctors committed criminal and tortious acts against him including destruction of two teeth, coercion, extortion, "bait and switch", and "confidence trick." Compl.**~~** 

### 1-5, 7-8, 14. Further, he claims that the state ofFlorida, through Governor Rick Scott, and various hospitals "scam[med]" Mr. Fries, subjected him to improper drug testing, and committed slander. Id. at 1. Mr. Fries does not state when this alleged dental work occurred. He requests $2.5 million dollars in damages. On August 20, 2015, Defendant filed amotion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which reliefcan be granted and lack ofsubject matterjurisdiction. After Mr. 

### Fries missed the September 24, 2015 deadline to respond to Defendant's motion to dismiss, the Courtissued ashowcause orderon October21, 2015 directingMr. Friesto file his response and to include a statement explaining why the Court should not dismiss his complaint for failure to prosecute. On November 6, 2015, Mr. Fries filed his response to Defendant's motion to dismiss. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.Because Mr. Fries is proceeding pro se, the Court must liberally construe his pleading to "see ifhe has a cause ofaction somewhere displayed." Straughter v. United States, 89 Fed. Cl. 755, 760 (2009) (internal citation omitted). The Court takes this duty seriously and has reviewed Mr. Fries's complaint carefully; however, it cannot discern a plausible cause ofaction therein. See, e.g., Rockefeller v. Chu, 471 F. App'x 829, 830 (10th Cir. 2012) ("[A] court may ... dismiss a complaint under [Federal] Rule [ofCivil Procedure] 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim ifit is patently obvious that the plaintiff could not prevail on the facts alleged, and allowing him an opportunity to amend his complaint would be futile." (internal quotation omitted)); see also Straughter, 89 Fed. Cl. at 760 ("Althoughprose plaintiffs are given some leniency in presenting their case, their pro se status does not immunize them from pleading facts upon which a valid claim can rest[.]" (internal citation omitted)). Although the Court should exercise leniency with respect to mere formalities with aproseparty, itmay nottake a similarlyliberalviewwithjurisdictionalrequirements. See Nasharrv. United States, 105 Fed. Cl. 114, 117 (2012); accordKelley v. Sec'y,U.S. Dep't ofLabor, 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ("We agree that leniency with respect to mere formalities should be extended to aprose party,

... [but] a court may not similarly take a liberal view of [a] jurisdictional requirement and set a different rule for pro se litigants only."). The TuckerAct, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, limits the Court'sjurisdictionto civil suits against the United States for money damages not sounding in tort. However, Mr. Fries alleges criminal andtortiouswrongdoingby the state ofFlorida, hospitals, andprivate individuals. He does not include the United States as a defendant and the Court finds no set offacts in the filed pleadings that demonstrates a claim against the United States, or that falls withinthis Court's TuckerActjurisdiction. Thus, the Court finds that any further expenditure ofgovernmental resources in preparing a defense to Mr. Fries's claims would be a waste ofpublic funds. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Mr. Fries's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk is directed to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint withoutprejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

2 THOMAS C. WHEELER Judge