ORIGINAL 

1f n tbe mtniteb ~tates <!Court of jf eberal <!Claims 

No. 15-758C 

(Filed: November 12, 2015) 

************************************ * 

* 

RICHARD G. FRIES, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE UNITED ST ATES, et al., 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Defendants. * 

* ************************************ * 

DISMISSAL ORDER 

FILED 

Nov 1 2 2015 

U.S. COURT 

FEDERAL CLA:s 

On July 20, 2015, pro se Plaintiff Richard Fries filed in this Court a complaint 

against the state of Florida, 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 of Florida, 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 a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. After Mr. Fries 

missed the September 24, 2015 deadline to respond to Defendant's motion to dismiss, the 

Court issued a show cause order on October 21, 2015 directing Mr. Fries to 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 if he has a cause of action 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 of action 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 [of Civil 

Procedure] 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim if it 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 ("Although prose 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 

a prose party, it may not take a similarly liberal view with jurisdictional requirements. See 

Nasharr v. United States, 105 Fed. Cl. 114, 117 (2012); accord Kelley v. Sec'y, U.S. Dep't 

of Labor, 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ("We agree that leniency with respect to 

mere formalities should be extended to a prose 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 Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, limits the Court's jurisdiction to civil 

suits against the United States for money damages not sounding in tort. However, Mr. 

Fries alleges criminal and tortious wrongdoing by the state of Florida, hospitals, and private 

individuals. He does not include the United States as a defendant and the Court finds no 

set of facts in the filed pleadings that demonstrates a claim against the United States, or 

that falls within this Court's Tucker Act jurisdiction. Thus, the Court finds that any further 

expenditure of governmental resources in preparing a defense to Mr. Fries's claims would 

be a waste of public 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 without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

2 

THOMAS C. WHEELER 

Judge