# ORIG!t\!At

lln tISe 

# @nitr! $ltstts @ourt of

# /e[rrsl @tufmg

No. 15-1071C 

### Filed: November 30, 2015



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

HARRY NIE, 

### Plaintiff,

v,

UNITED STATES,
Defendant.



### Harry Nie, Mitchells, VA, p1q se. 

### Albert 

### S. larossi, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

### Civil Division, 

### United States Department 

### of Justice, 

### Washington, D.C.,

### for the defendant. 

### With her 

### were 

### Robert 

### E. Kirschman, 

### Jr., Director, 

### and 

### Benjamin 

### C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant 

### Attorney General, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

### Civil Division, Washington, D.C.


## ORDER

HORN. J. FINDINGS OF FACT
The plaintiff, Harry Nie, filed 

### a pro se, "COMPLAINT WITH 

### JURY DEMAND"I in 

### this court 

### on September 

### 25, 2015, along 

### with 

### an application

## to proceed 

### in forma pauperis. (emphasis in

### original). Plaintiff's complaint begins:



### This 

### is

### a LAWSUIf] pursuant 

### to: 1)

## 2U.,S.G-A._W!., Tucker Act 

### jurisdiction, seeking $95,000 

### each 

### year 

### in compensation 

### damages for 

### unjust 

### loss

## of plaintiff-property' 

### rights 

## to continued employment with

1 

### "The court iswithout authority 

### to grant plaintiffs' request

### for ajury trial. 

### 'lt has long been settled that

### the Seventh Amendment right to trial byjury does not apply in actions against 

### the Federal Government."' 

### Cox

### v. United 

### States, 105 Fed. Cl. 

### 213, 216 n.10 

### (2012)(quotingLehmanv.Nakshian,453U.S. 156, 

### 160(1981)).Thecourtnotesthisis also plaintiff's only reference to ajurytrial inthe complaint.

2Capitalization, grammar, punctuation, and other errors are quoted inthis Order asthey appear in 

### plaintiffs submissions. 

# FILED

NOV

## I O e0U

U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

Pro Se 

### Plaintiff; ln Forma Pauperis 

### Application; Lack of Subject Matter 

### Jurisdiction.

### General Dynamics Amphibious 

### System, 

### since government willfully

violating 

### due process 

### of law in plaintiff legal 

### case inviolation 

### ofthe Fifth 

### Amendment, 

### the amount accumulates starting 

### since 2009

### till plaintiff rights 

### will be restored, and of $300,000 each year in punitive damages for 

### unjust loss

### of liberty 

### without due process 

### of law in violation 

### ofthe Fifth 

### Amendment, 

### the amount accumulates starting 

### since2009

### till plaintiff rights 

### will be restored. Government committed "breach 

### of contract" with tortious, intentional or egregious misconduct of defendant,


### (emphasis 

### in original). Plaintiff claims 

### that: 

### "On September 

### 14. 2009 plaintiff was convicted 

### in Prince Williams County Circuit Court, Manassas, Virginia by coerced plea guilty of multiplicitous carbon copy counts of rape/incest and aggravated sexual battery, without 

### justifiable evidences." (emphasis 

### in original). 

### As noted 

### inthe attachments to 

### plaintiffs complaint, however, 

### a final order issued

### on April

### 2, 2014, 

### by Chief Judge 

### Rebecca Beach Smith 

### ofthe United States District Court

### forthe Eastern District 

### of Virginia indicated 

### that: "On September 

### 14,2009, 

### the Petitioner 

### [Mr. Nie] pled guilty to 

### five (5) counts 

### of incest and

### five (5) counts 

### of aggravated sexual battery, in

### the Prince 

### William County 

### Circuit Court, 

### and

### was sentenced 

## to 100years

### with

### 80 years suspended, leaving atotal time 

### to serve of 20 years." See Nie

### v. Clark, Case No. 2:1 1- cv-666 (E.D.Va. 

### Apr.2,2014).

Plaintiff claims 

### that: 

### "ln thetime period 

### of from March 

### 8, 2011

## till present, plaintiff has been confined in

### the current prison, Coffeewood Correctional Center in the 

### State of Virginia, 

### with 

### a meaningful access 

### of legal materials." (emphasis 

### in original). Plaintiff subsequently lists twenty 

### six separate actions 

### taken by plaintiff 

### orthevarious courts since 2011, including decisions by

### the United States District Court for the Eastern District ofVirginia,the United States Court ofAppealsfor the Fourth Circuit, the Virginia Supreme Court, and

### the United States Supreme 

### Court.3 For example, 

### forthe actions taken in2015 alone, plaintiff alleges:

321 On February 

### 25, 2015, plaintiff tried 

### to file 

### a bill 

### of complaint

### for this Miscarriage 

### of Justice 

### tothe United States Supreme Court, in which the court below issuspending the writ offederal habeas corpus and oveniding 

### the U.S. Constitution 

### and 

### the applicable statutes, without justification 

### of

3

### After plaintiff

### filed his complaint 

### on September 

### 25, 2015 in

### this court, 

### on October 20, 2015, plaintiff filed a

# re se complaint in

### the United States District Court for

### the District 

### of Columbia seeking injunctive 

### and declaratory 

### relief. 

### The court notes

### that parts of plaintiff's October 

### 20,2015 complaint are identical to the complaint filed inthis court on September 

### 25,2015. The same day

### the complaintwas 

### filed in District Court, October 

### 20, 2015,

### the District Court dismissed plaintiff's complaint concluding, "[i]nsofar as the plaintiff continuesto challenge his convictions inthe Virginia courts, he has no recourse in this federal district." Nie 

### v. Gov't of

### the United States of America, Case No. 15-1788 (D.D.C. 

### Oct.20,2015). Subsequently, on November 

### 19,2015, plaintiff filed an appeal to 

### the United States Court ofAppeals for 

### the District 

### of Columbia Circuit. See Niev. Gov't ofthe United States ofAmerica, Case No. 15-5320 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 19,2015).laws as described inthis complaint. However, duetovery limited financial

resources 

### to access courts, plaintiff sent

### the complaint 

### tothe Supreme 

### Court 

### of

### the United States 

### and

### to the Attornev General 

### of

### the United States, without sending to other defendants. 

### 33) On, March 

### 23, 2015, the 

### writ

### of certiorari 

### as denied 

### by

### the United States Supreme Court.

341

### On 

### May 18,2015, 

### the rehearing 

### was denied 

### by

### the United States Suoreme Court.

351On

### June 9, 2015, 

### the complaint

### to the United States Supreme Court


### was returned due 

### to failing 

### to comply with 

### the rules 

### ofthe Court, without ruling it, see a copy attached asAppendix Supp.

In his claims for relief inthis court, plaintiff alleges that

defendant has acted

### with reckless indifference 

### to plaintiffl rights, ill

### will, a desire 

### to injure, 

### or malice committed 

### as independenttorts accompanying 

### breach

### of contract 

### as "FRAUD, 

### DECEIT, CONyERS/ON, 

### BREACH OF FIDUCIARY 

### DUTY, BREACH 

### OF THE COVENANT 

### OF GOOD FAITH 

### AND FAIR DEALING, NEGLIGENCE, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL 

### D/SIRESS, MALICE, FALSE IMPRISONMENT", inducing 

### the Breach of Contract in reference to the U.S. CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 

## ll section 

### 1, section 3, and

### the U.S. CONSI/TUTION ARTICLE Vl clause



### (emphasis 

### in original). Plaintiff 

### claims

### that "since

### the defendant Suspendinq the 

### pivileqe ofthe

### Wit of Habeas Corpus 

### and the defendant Ovenidinq 

### the Statutes 

### and the 

### Fifth. Sixth- and Foufteenth Amendment 

### of the United States Constitution. without 

### justification," (emphasis 

### in original), 

### "the defendant committed

### tortious misconducts inducing 

### this breach of contract, without excuse andjustification, causing unjust loss 

### of liberty and enjoyment of live since 2009 till tothis present date."

Therefore, as noted above,



### the plaintiff demands forjudgment against 

### the United States 

### in sum 

### of $ 

### 95,000 each 

### year in compensation damages 

### for unjust loss 

### of plaintiff

### property' 

### rights

## to continued employment 

## with General Dynamics Amphibious System, since 

### the defendant Suspendino the 

### pivileqe of the Writ of Habeas Corpus andthe defendant Ovenidinq 

### the Statutes and the 

### Fifth. Sixth- and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. without justification, 

### the amount accumulates starting-since year 

### of 2009 

### till plaintiff rights

### will be restored, and 

### of $ 300,000 each 

### year in punitive damages 

### for unjust-loss 

### of liberty, 

### since

### the defendant Suspending the privileqe 

### of the Writ 

### of Habeas Corpus 

### andthe defendant Overridinq theStatutes 

### and the 

### Fifth. Sixth- 

### and Foufteenth Amendment 

### ofthe United

States Constitution. withoutjustification, 

### the amount accumulates starting since year of 2009 till 

### plaintiff rights will be restored.

(emphasis in original).


### On November

### 23, 2015, 

### the defendant

### filed 

## a motion

### to dismiss

### for lack of 

### subject matter

### jurisdiction. For 

### the reasons discussed below, 

### it is clear 

### thatthis court lacksjurisdiction over plaintiff's complaint.



### DtscussroN

The court recognizes that plaintiff is proceeding pro se,withoutthe assistance

### of counsel. When determining whether 

### a complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff is sufficient to 

### invoke review 

### by

### a court, pro 

### se plaintiffs 

### are entitled 

### to liberal construction 

### of their 

### pleadings. 

### See Haines

### v. Kerner,

### 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (requiring 

### that allegations 

### contained 

### in

## a pro 

### se complaint 

### be held

### to "less stringent standards

### than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"), reh'q 

### denied,405 U.S. 9a8

### (972); see also Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 

### 89, 94 (2007); Huqhes

### v. Rowe,449 U.S. 

### 5,

### 9-10 (1980); Estelle v. 

### Gamble,429 U.S. 

### 97, 106 (1976), reh'q

### denied,429 U.S. 1066 (1977); Matthews v. United 

### States,750 F.3d 1320, 1322 (Fed. 

### Cir.2014); Diamond

### v. United 

### States, 115 Fed. Cl. 

### 516,524, 

### affd,603 F.App'x 947 (Fed. 

### Cir.2015), cert. denied 135 S. Ct. 1909 (2015). "However, "'[t]here is no duty onthe part ofthe trial court to create a claim which [the plaintiff] has not spelled out in his [or her] pleading.""'Lenoen 

### v. United States, 100 Fed. 

### Cl. 317 

### , 328 (201 

### 1) (alterations 

### in original) (quoting Scooin 

### v. United States, 33 Fed. Cl. 

### 285,293 (1995) (quoting Clark 

### v. Nat'l Travelers Life lns. 

### Co.,518 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir. 1975))); see also 

### Bussiev. United 

### States,96 Fed. 

### C|.89,94, affd,443F. App'x 542 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Minehan 

### v. United 

### States,

### 75 Fed. 

### Cl.249,253 (2007). 

### "While 

### a pro 

### se plaintiff 

### is held

### to

## a less stringent standard

### than

### that

### of

### a plaintiff 

### represented 

### by 

### an attorney,

### the pro

### se plaintiff, nevertheless, 

### bears 

### the burden of establishing the Court'sjurisdiction by a preponderance ofthe evidence." Riles v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 163, 165 (2010) (citing Huqhes 

### v. Rowe, 449 U.S. at 9 andTavlor v. United States, 

### 303 F.3d 1357, 1359 (Fed. Cir.) ("Plaintiff bears 

### the burden 

### of showing jurisdiction bya preponderance ofthe evidence."), reh'q and reh'q en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2002)); see also Shelkofskv v. United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 133, 139 (2014) ("[Wlhile 

### the court may excuse ambiguities 

### in

### a prose plaintiffs complaint, 

### the court 'does not


### excuse 

### [a complaint's] 

### failures."' (quoting Henke 

### v. United States, 

### 60 F.3d 795, 799 

### (Fed. 

### Cir. 1995)); Harris 

### v. United States, 

### 113 Fed. 

### Cl. 290, 292 (2013) ("Although 

### plaintiffs pleadings 

### are held 

### to a less stringent standard, such leniency 'with respect to 

### mere formalities 

### does 

### not relieve 

### the burden

## to meet jurisdictional requirements."' (quoting Minehan 

### v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. at 253).


## It is well established 

### that "'subjeclmatter jurisdiction, because 

## it involves a 

### court's power 

### to hear

### a case, 

### can never beforfeited or waived."' 

### Arbauqh

### v.

### Y & H 

### Corp.,546 

### U.S.500,514 (2006) (quoting United States 

### v. Cofton,535 

### U.S.625,630 (2002)). "[F]ederal 

### courts have 

### an independent obligation 

### to ensure 

### that they 

### do not

### exceed

### the scope 

### of their jurisdiction, 

### and therefore 

### they must raise 

### and decide

jurisdictional questions thatthe parties either overlook or elect not

### to press." Henderson


### ex rel. Henderson 

### v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 

### 428,434 (2011); see also Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 

### S. Ct. 641, 648 (2012) ("When 

### a requirement 

### goes

### to subject-matterjurisdiction, courts are obligated 

### to consider sua 

### sponle issues

### thatthe parties have disclaimed or have not presented."); Hertz Corp.

### v. Friend, 559 

### U.S.77,94 (2010) ("Courts have an 

### independent obligation

### to determine 

### whether subject-matter 

### jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it." (citing Arbauoh v.

### Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. at 514)); Special Devices. lnc.

### v. OEA, lnc., 269 F.3d 1340, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 

### ('[A] court has a duty 

### to inquire into itsjurisdiction 

### to hear and decide a case." (citing Johannsen 

### v. Pav Less Druq Stores N.W., 

### lnc.,91B F.2d 160, 161 (Fed. Cir. 1990));View Enq'q, lnc. 

### v. Robotic Vision Svs.. lnc., 115 F.3d 962, 963 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("[C]ourts must always looktotheir 

### jurisdiction, whether 

### the parties raise

### the issue

### or not."). "Objections 

### toa tribunal's jurisdiction can be raised at anytime, even by a party that once conceded the tribunal's subject-matter 

### jurisdiction over

### the controversy." Sebelius 

### v. Auburn Req'l Med. Ctr., 

### 't33 S. 

### Ct. 817,824 (2013); 

### see also Arbauoh 

### v. 

### Y & H Corp., 

### 546 U.S. 

### at 506 ("The objection 

### that afederal court lacks subject-matter 

### jurisdiction



### . . . may 

### be raised 

### by a party, or by a court on its own initiative, at any stage in

### the litigation, even after trial and 

### the entry ofjudgment."); Cent. Pines Land Co., L.L.C. 

### v. United 

### States,697 F.3d 1360, 1364 n.1 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2012) ("An objection

### to a court's subject matter jurisdiction can be raised 

### by any party or

### the court at any stage

### of litigation, including after 

### trial and the 

### entry 

### of judgment." (citing Arbauqh 

### v.

## Y & H Corp.,

### 546 U.S.

### at 506-07)); Rick's Mushroom 

### Serv.. lnc.

### v. United 

### States,521 F.3d 1338, 1346 

### (Fed. 

### Cir.2008) ("[Alny 

### party may challenge, 

### or the court may raise 

### sua sponte, subject matterjurisdiction at anytime." (citing Arbauoh v.Y 

### & H Corp., 546 U.S. at 506; 

### EqElery.=Unilellslateg, 379 

### F.3d 1344, 1354 (Fed. Cir.), reh'q 

### and reh'q 

### en banc denied (Fed. 

### Cir.2004), cert. denied, 

### 545 U.S. 1127 (2005); 

### and Fanninq. Phillips 

### & Molnar

### v.

### West,160 F.3d717, 720 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1998))); Pikulin

### v. United 

### States,97 Fed.

### Cl.71,76, aopeal dismissed, 

### 425 F.App'x 902 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Infact, "[s]ubject matterjurisdiction is an inquiry that 

### this court 

### must raise sua sponfe, even 

### where - 

### . . neither party 

### has raised 

### this issue." Metabolite Labs., Inc.

### v. Lab. Corp. of

### Am. Holdinos,370 F.3d 1354, 1369 (Fed. Cir.) (citing Textile Prods., Inc. v. Mead Corp., 134 F.3d 1481 ,'1485 (Fed. Cir.), reh'q denied and 

### en banc suqqestion declined (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 

### 525 U.S. 826 (1998)), reh'q and reh'o en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2004), cert. qranted in

### pa[ sub. nom Lab. Corp. 

### of 

### Am. Holdinqs

## v. Metabolite 

### Labs.. Inc., 

### 546 U.S. 

### 975 (2005), 

### cert. dismissed as improvidentlv qranted, 

### 548 

### U.S. 124 (2006); 

### see also

### Avid ldentification 

### Svs.. lnc. v. Crvstal lmport Corp., 

### 603 F.3d 

### 967,971 (Fed. Cir.) ("This court must always determine 

### for itself whether 

### it hasjurisdiction 

### to hear 

### the case before it, even when

### the parties do 

### not raise 

### or contest 

### the issue."), reh'q 

### and reh'q 

### en banc denied, 

### 614 F.3d 1330 (Fed. 

### Cir.2010), cert. denied, 131 S. 

### Ct.909 (2011).

Pursuantto

### the Rules of

### the United States Court 

### of Federal Claims (RCFC) and 

### the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff need only state inthe complaint "ashort 

### and plain statement 

### ofthe grounds 

### forthe court'sjurisdiction," and 

### "a short and plain statement of

### the claim showing that 

### the pleader is entitled

### to relief." RCFC 8(aX1), (2) 

### (2015); Fed. R. Civ. 

### P. 8(a)(1), 

### (2) (2015); 

### see also Ashcroft 

### v. lqbal, 556 U.S. 662,

### 677-78 (2009) (citing Bell

### Atl. Corp. 

### v. Twomblv, 

### 550 U.S.

### 544,555-57,570 (2007)).

"Determination ofjurisdiction starts 

### withthe complaint, 

### which must be well-pleaded in 

### that 

### it must state

### the necessary elements 

### ofthe plaintiffs claim, independent 

### of any defense 

### that may 

### be interposed." Hollev

### v. United 

### States,124 F.3d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir.) (citing Franchise

### Tax Bd.

### v. Constr. Laborers Vacation 

### Trust,463 U.S. 1 (1983)), reh'q denied (Fed. 

### Cir. 1997); see also Klamath Tribe Claims Comm.

### v. United States, 

### 97 Fed. 

### C|.203, 208 (2011); Gonzalez-McCaullev Inv. 

### Grp., lnc.

### v. United 

### States,93 Fed. Cl.

### 710,713 (2010). "Conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences 

### of fact do not suffice 

### to support 

### a claim." Bradlev

### v. Chiron Corp., 136 

### F.3d 1317,1322 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 501 F.3d 1354, 1363 n.9 (Fed. 

### Cn. 2007) (Dyk, 

### J., concurring 

### in part, dissenting 

### in part) (quoting 

### C. Wright and A. 

### Miller, Federal Practice 

### and Procedure

### S 1286 

### (3d 

### ed. 2004)). 

### "A plaintiff's factual allegations 

### must'raise 

### a right

### to relief above 

### the speculative level' 

### and cross 

### 'the line from conceivable

### to plausible."'Three 

### S Consultinq

### v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 510, 523 (2012) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.Twomblv,550 U.S. at 555), aff'd, 562 F.App'x 964 

### (Fed. Cir.), reh'q denied (Fed. Cir. 2014).

### As stated in Ashcroft 

### v. lqbal, 

### "[a] pleading that offers 'labels and conclusions' 

### or'a formulaic recitation of the elements of 

### a cause of action

### will not

### do.' 550 U.S. 

### at 555. Nordoes 

### a comolaintsuffice 

### if ittenders 'naked assertion[s]' devoid of 'further factual enhancement. "'Ashcroft

### v. lqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.Twomblv,550 U.S. at 555).

The Tucker Act grantsjurisdictiontothis court as follows:

The United States Court of Federal Claims shall havejurisdiction 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, orfor liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort.



### 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 1491(a)(1) (2012). 

### As interpreted

### bythe United States Supreme Court, the 

### Tucker 

### Act waives sovereign immunity 

### to allowjurisdiction 

### over claims against the United States (1)founded on an express 

### or implied contract with 

### the United States, (2) seeking 

### a refund from a prior payment made to the government, or (3) based onfederal 

### constitutional, statutory, 

### or regulatory 

### law mandating compensation 

### by the federal governmentfor damages sustained. See United States 

### v. Navaio Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 

### 289-90 (2009); United States

### v. Mitchell,463 U.S. 

### 206,216 (1983);see also Greenlee Cntv.. 

### Ariz.

### v. United 

### States,487 F.3d 

### 871,875 (Fed. Cir.), reh'q and reh'q 

### en banc 

### denied (Fed. Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 

### 552 U.S. 

### 1M2 (2008); Palmer

### v. United States, 168 F.3d 1310, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 1999).



### "Not every claim invoking 

### the Constitution, 

### a federal statute, 

### or a regulation is cognizable under

### the Tucker 

### Act.The claim 

### must be one

### for money damages against 

### the United 

### States



### . . . ." United States 

### v. Mitchell, 

### 463 U.S. 

### at 216; see also United States 

### v.White Mountain 

### Apache Tribe, 

### 537 U.S. 465, 

### 472 (2003); Smith

### v. United 

### States, 

### 709 F.3d 1114, 1116 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 

### 134

## S. CL 259 (2013);

### RadioShack Corp. 

### v. United 

### States,566 F.3d 1358, 1360 

### (Fed. 

### Cir.2009); Rick's

Mushroom Serv.. Inc.

### v. United 

### States,521 F.3d 

### at 1343 ("[P]laintiff 

### must.

. . 

### identifya substantive source 

### of law that creates

### the right 

### to recovery 

### of money damages against 

### the United States."); Golden

### v. United States, 118 Fed. 

### Cl.764,768 (2014). In Ontario Power Generation. 

### Inc.

### v. United States, 

### the United 

### States Court

### of Appeals 

### for the Federal Circuit identifiedthree types of monetary claimsfor which jurisdiction 

### is lodged inthe United States Court of Federal Claims. The court wrote:



### The underlying monetary claims 

### are

### of three

# types. First, claims 

### alleging 

## the existence

## of

## a contract between

## the plaintiff 

### and the government 

### fall withinthe Tucker 

### Act's waiver.



### . . . Second, 

### the Tucker Act'swaiver encompasses claims where "the plaintiff has paid money over 

### tothe Government, directly 

### or in effect, and seeks return 

### of all or part of that sum." Eastport S.S. lCorp.

### v. United States, 178 Ct. Cl. 599, 605-06,] 

### 372 F.2d [1002,] 1007-08 [(1967)] (describing illegal 

### exaction claims as claims "in

### which 'the Government has

### the citizen's money 

### in its pocket"' (quoting Claop 

### v. United 

### States,127 Ct. Cl. 

### 505, 117 

### F. Supp. 576, 580 (1954))

. . . .Third, the Court of Federal Claims hasjurisdiction over those claimswhere "money has not been paid but

### the plaintiff assertsthat he is nevertheless entitled 

### to 

### a payment from 

### thetreasury." Eastport S.S., 372 F.2d

### at 1007. Claims in

### thisthird category,

### where no payment has been 

### made

### to the government, 

### either directly 

### or in effect, require 

### that the "particular provision of law relied upon grants the claimant, expressly or by implication, a rightto be paid a certain sum." ld.; see also lUnited States v. lTestan, 

### 424 U.S. 1392,) 401-02 [1976] ("Where

### the United States is the defendant 

### and

### the plaintiff 

### is not suing 

### for money improperly exacted or retained, 

### the basis ofthe federal claim-whether 

### it be

### the Constitution, a 

### statute,

### or

## a regulation-does 

### not create 

## a cause

### of action 

### for money damages unless, asthe Court of Claims has stated, that basis 'in itself

. . . 

### can fairly 

### be interpreted 

### as mandating compensation 

### by

### the Federal Government for the damage sustained."' (quoting Eastport S.S., 372 F.2d 

### at 1009)). This category is commonly referred

### to as claims brought under
a "money-mandating" statute.

Ontario 

### PowerGeneration, Inc.

### v. United 

### States,369 F.3d 1298, 1301 (Fed. 

### Cir.2004);

see alsoTwp. of Saddle Brookv. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 101, 106 (2012).


### To prove

### that

## a statute

## or regulation 

## is money-mandating, 

## a plaintiff must demonstrate 

### that an independent source 

### of substantive 

### law relied upon "'can 

### fairly be interpreted 

### as mandating compensation by

### the Federal Government."' United States v. Navaio Nation, 

### 556 U.S. 

### at 290 (quoting United States 

### v. 

### Testan,424 

### U.5.392, 400 

### (1976)); 

### see also United States

### v. White Mountain 

### Apache Tribe, 

### 537 U.S.

### at 472; United States 

### v. Mitchell, 

### 463 U.S. at 217; Blueport Co., LLC

### v. United States, 533 F.3d 

### 1374, 1383 

### (Fed. 

### Cir.2008), cert. 

### denied,555 U.S. 1153 (2009). 

### The source 

### oflaw granting monetary relief must be distinct fromthe Tucker 

### Act itself. See United States v. Navaio Nation,

### 556 U.S. at 

### 290 (The Tucker Act 

### does not create "substantive rights; [it

### is simply 

### al jurisdictional provision[] 

### that operate[s] 

### to waive sovereign immunity for

claims premised on other sources 

### of law (e.9., statutes or contracts)."). "'lf the statute is not money-mandating, 

### the Court 

### of Federal Claims lacksjurisdiction, andthe dismissal 

### should be

### for lack

### of subject matterjurisdiction."' 

### Jan's Helicopter 

### Serv.. Inc.

### v. Fed. AviationAdmin., 525 F.3d 1299, 1308 (Fed. 

### Cir.2008) (quoting Greenlee Cntv.. Ariz. v. United States, 487 F.3d at 876); Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 

### 2005) (The absence 

### of

### a money-mandating 

### source 

### is "fatal 

### tothe court's jurisdiction under the Tucker Act."); Peoples v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 553, 

### 565-66 (2009).



### From

### the complaint, 

## it appears 

### that plaintiff 

### has asserted violations 

## of his constitutional 

### rights under

### the Fifth, Sixth, 

### and FourteenthAmendments 

### tothe United States Constitution, alleged tortious conduct by

### the United States, aswell as 

### a breach 

### of contract although 

### Mr. Nie has not alleged specific grounds 

### for these claims 

### in his 

### complaint. Regarding plaintiff's constitutional claims, defendant argues "[a]lthough Mr. 

### Nie cites 

### a number 

### of constitutional amendments 

### that he claims provide jurisdiction,

none do in his case. 

### lt iswell established, for example, that

### the Due Process clauses 

### of both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments do not mandate 

### the payment of money, and thus do not provide a cause of action under the Tucker Act." For plaintiffs claims for due 

### process under 

### the Fifth 

### and FourteenthAmendments,

### the United 

### States Court of Appeals for 

### the Federal Circuit has held that this court does not possess jurisdiction to 

### consider claims arising under 

### the Due Process 

### Clauses 

### of

### the Fifth 

### and Fourteenth 

### Amendments. See Crocker 

### v. United States, 125 

### F.3d 1475, 1476 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1997) (citing LeBlanc

### v. United States, 

### 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1995)) (nojurisdiction



### over 

### a due process 

### violation under 

### the Fifth 

### and Fourteenth Amendments); 

### see also Smith v. United States, 709 F.3d 1114, 1116 (Fed. Cir.) ("The law iswell settled that the Due Process clauses of boththe Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments do not mandate the payment 

### of money and 

### thus 

### do not provide 

### a cause 

### of action under 

### the Tucker Act." (citing 

### LeBlancv. United

### States,50 F.3d 

### at 1028), cert. denied, 134 S.

### Ct.259 (2013)); 

### ln re United 

### States,463 F.3d 1328, 1335 n.5 (Fed. Cir.) ("[B]ecause 

### the Due Process Clause 

### is not money-mandating, 

### it may 

### not provide

### the basis forjurisdiction under the Tucker 

### Act."), reh's and reh'q 

### en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2006), cert. denied 

### sub nom. Scholl 

### v. United States, 

### 552 U.S. 

### 9a0 (2007);Acadia 

### Tech.. lnc. 

### & Global

### Win Tech.. Ltd. v. United States, 458 F.3d 

### 1327,1334 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Collins v. United States, 67 F.3d

### 284,288 (Fed. Cir.) ("[T]he due process clause does not obligate 

### the government 

### to pay money damages."), reh'q denied (Fed. 

### Cir. 1995); Mullenberq 

### v. United States, 857 F.2d 770, 773 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (finding that 

### the Due Process clauses "do nottrigger Tucker 

### Actjurisdiction in 

### the courts"); Murrav 

### v. United 

### States,817 F.2d 1580, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (noting that

### the FifthAmendment Due Process clause does not include language mandating 

### the payment 

### of money 

### damages); Harper

### v. United 

### States, 104 Fed.

### Cf.287,291 n.5(2012); Hampel 

### v. United

### States,97 Fed.

### C|.235,238,affd,429 F.

### App'x 995 (Fed. 

### Cir.2011), cert. denied, 132 

### S. Ct. 11OS 

### (2012); McCullouqh v. United States, 

### 76 Fed. Cl. 

### 1,4 (2006), aopeal dismissed, 236 F.App'x 615 (Fed. Cir.), 

### reh'q denied 

### (Fed. Cir.), 

### cert. denied, 

### 552 U.S. 1050 (2007) ("[N]either

### the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause

. . . northe Privileges and lmmunities Clause provides


### a basis for jurisdiction in

### this court because

### the Fifth Amendment 

### is not 

### a sourcethat mandates 

### the payment 

### of money

### to plaintiff."). Due process claims "must 

### be heard inDistrict Court." 

### Kam-Almaz

### v. United States, 

### 96 Fed. 

### Cl. 84, 89 (2011) (citing Acadia

Tech., Inc. & Global Win Tech., Ltd.

### v. United 

### States,458 F.3d 

### at 1334), 

### aff'd,682 F.3d

'f364 (Fed. Cir.2O12); see also Hampel 

### v. United States, 97 Fed. Cl. at

### 238. Therefore, to

### the extent that plaintiff is attempting 

### to allege Due Process violations, no such cause of action can be brought inthis court.
Similarly, 

### insofar 

### as plaintiffs claims allege

### a violation

### of his rights under the 

### Sixth Amendment

### to

### the United States Constitution, 

### this Amendment 

### is not moneymandating and, therefore,jurisdiction 

### to reviewthese claims 

### does not lie in

### this court. 

### See Dupre

## v. United 

### States,229 Ct. 

### Cl. 706, 

### 706 (1981) ("[T]he 

### fourth and sixth amendments 

### do not in themselves obligate

### the United States

### to pay money damages; and, therefore,we have nojurisdiction over such claims."); Turpin

### v. United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 

### 704,707 (2015) ("To the extent that Ms. Turpin's complaint brings constitutional challenges under 

### the Due Process Clause andthe Sixth Amendment,

### the Court cannot 

### hear such claims because 

### neither

### of these constitutional provisions 

### is

## a money

### mandating source."); Gable

### v. United 

### States, 106 Fed. 

### Cl.294,298 (2012) ("[T]he 

### United States Court 

### of Federal Claims 

### does 

### not havejurisdiction

### to adjudicate the 

### alleged violations 

## of Plaintiffs Sixth Amendment rights, because 

### that constitutional 

### provision 

### is not money-mandating."); 

### Treece

### v. United States, 

### 96 Fed. 

### Cl.226,231 (2010) (citing Milas 

### v. United

### States,42Fed. C!.704,710 (1999) (finding that the Sixth 

### Amendment 

### is not money-mandating)); 

### Smith

### v. United States, 

### 51 Fed. 

### Cl.36,38 (2001) (internal citations 

### omitted) (finding 

### that 

### the Court 

## of Federal 

### Claims lacks jurisdiction over Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claims), aff'd, 36 F. 

### App'x444 (Fed. Cir.), reh'o denied (Fed. Cir.), cert. 

### denied,537 U.S. 1010 (2002).


### Regarding 

### plaintiffs claims concerning 

### the writ 

### of habeas corpus, defendant 

### argues 

### "Mr. Nie primarily alleges

### that

### the Federal courts 

### ofthe Fourth Circuit have suspended 

### thewrit

### of habeas 

### corpus 

### in his case. 

### This Court cannot grant 

### a writ of habeas corpus." (internal citation omitted).To the extent plaintiff brings awrit of habeas corpus beforethis court,

### the United States Court ofAppeals for 

### the Federal Circuit has indicated that "the habeas statute [28 U.S.C. S

### 2254]does not list

### the Court

### of Federal Claims among those courts empowered 

### to grant a

### writ

### of habeas corpus, andthe trial court 

### therefore iswithout power

### to entertain 

### Mr. Ledford's petition." Ledford

### v. United 

### States,297 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. 

### Cn.2002); see also Emerson 

### v. United States, 123 

### Fed. 

### Cl. 126, 129 

### (2015). To the extent plaintiff 

### is seeking 

### this court

### to overrule a 

### decision 

### by 

### the United States District Court

### for

### the Eastern District

### of Virginia, the United States Court of Appeals for 

### the Fourth Circuit,the Virginia Supreme Court, and 

### the United States Supreme Court,

### the Federal Circuit has found 

### that "the Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction

### to reviewthe decisions of district courts or the clerks 

### of district courts relating

### to proceedings before 

### those courts." Joshua 

### v. United States, 17 F.3d 

### 378,380 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

Furthermore, thejurisdiction 

### ofthis court 

### does not include

### the power

### to review criminal convictions. See id.

### at379; Lottv. United States, 11 Cl.

### Ct.852,852-53 (1987);


### see also Cooper 

### v. United 

### States, 104 Fed. 

### Cl. 306, 312 (2012\ While 

### this court may 

### adjudicate claims 

### for damages arising 

### from unjust convictions overturned 

### by other

### courts,

### as provided 

### by

### 28 U.S.C. 

### S 1495 (2012), 

### Mr. Nie cannot bringsuch 

### a claim,

because 

### no court has

### yet reversed 

### or set aside his conviction, 

### nor has he attached a 

### pardon

### or certificate 

### of innocence, 

### as is required 

### to sustain

### a claim under 

### 28 U.S.C. S 1495. See

### 28 U.S.C. 52513 (2012); Abu-Shawish

### v. United States, 120 Fed. 

### Ci.812, 813 (2015); 

### Humphrevv. United

### States,52 Fed. Cl. 

### 593,596 (2002), 

### affd,60 F. App'x 292 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

As noted above, in his complaint, Mr. Nie also alleges that

defendant has acted

### with reckless indifference

### to plaintiff rights, illwill, a desire 

### to injure, 

### or malice committed 

### as independenttorts accompanying 

### breach 

### of contract

### as "FRAUD, 

### DECEIT, CONyERS/OM BREACH OF FIDUCIARY 

### DUTY, BREACH 

### OF THE COVENANT 

### OF GOOD FAITH 

### AND FAIR DEALING, NEGLIGENCE, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL 

### D/SIRESS, MALICE, FALSE IMPRISONMENT."
(emphasis 

### in original). 

### This court, however, 

### does not possessjurisdiction over claims that sound intort. See 28 U.S.C. 

### g 1a91(a) ("The United States Court of Federal Claims 

### shall have

### jurisdiction

### 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 contractwith 

### the United States, 

### or for liquidated 

### or unliquidated 

### damages 

### in cases 

### not sounding 

### in tort."); 

### see also Keene Corp. 

### v. United 

### States,508 U.S. 

### 200,214 (1993); Rick's Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d 

### at 1343;Alvesv. United States, 133 F.3d 1454, 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Brown

### v. United 

### States, 105 

### F.3d 621 

### ,623 (Fed. 

### Cir.), reh'o denied (Fed. Cir. 1997); Golden Pac. Bancoro 

### v. United States, 15 F.3d 1066, 1070 n.8 (Fed. Cir.), reh'q 

### denied,

### en banc suoqestion 

### declined (Fed. Cir.), cert. 

### denied,513 U.S.961 (1994); Hampel

### v. United States, 

### 97 Fed. 

### Cl. at 238; Woodson 

### v. United States, 

### 89 Fed. Cl. 640, 650 (2009); McCullouoh 

### v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl.

### at 3;Aoee

### v. United States, 

### 72 Fed. 

### Cl.

### 284,290 (2006); Zhenqxinq 

### v. United States, 

### 71 Fed. Ct. 

### 732, 739, 

### affd, 204 F.App'x 885 (Fed. Cir.), reh'q denied (Fed. Cir. 2006). Therefore, to the extent any of plaintiffls claims sound intort, those claims must be dismissed.


### As referenced 

### in his

### tort claims, plaintiff 

### also alleges 

## a breach 

### of contract. Plaintiff claims 

### that "the defendant 

### acted reckless indifference 

### to plaintiff rights," and "[t]hus the defendant has breached the contracts as created by

The 

### United States 

### Constitution Article ll

### section 1 : 

### "

... Before enter 

### on the execution 

### of his 

### office, 

### he shall

### take care the following 

### oath 

### of affirmation: 

### J'l do solemnty 

### swear (or affirm) 

### that 

## I will faithfully execute 

### theoffice of President 

### of the lJnited States, 

### and will to 

### the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States",

10The 

### United States 

### Constitution Article ll

### section 3:

"

...

### he shall take care thatthe laws be faithfully executed

... ",

The 

### United States 

### Constitution Article Vl clause 3: 

## "

... all executive 

### andJudicial officers



## ... shall 

### be bound 

### bv oath or affirmation 

### to support this Constitution".

(emphasis and 

### omissions in original).

In its motion

### to dismiss, defendant notes that "althoughthis Court does possess jurisdiction 

### over breach 

### of contract claims against 

### the United States, in

### this case, Mr. Nie 

### does not allege 

### the existence 

### of any contract between 

### the United States and him. Rather, 

### he merely claims 

### that the various clauses 

### of 

### the Constitution 

### are themserves 

### contracts between 

### the Government 

### and him." 

### In order 

### for this court

## to exercise jurisdiction 

### of plaintiffs attempted contract 

### claims, under 

### the Tucker 

### Act, 

### 28 U.S.C. S 1491 

### ,

### a plaintiff must allegefacts 

### that demonstrate 

### either

### a contract 

### exists between 

### himself 

### and

### the United States, 

### or plaintiff 

### must somehow 

### allege 

### he is entitled to monetary relief under another money-mandating provision 

### of 

### law. To establish 

### avalid contract 

### with 

### the government, 

### whether express 

### or lmplied, 

### a plaintiff must show: (1) mutuality of intent; (2) consideration; (3) an unambiguous offer and acceptance; and (4) actual authority on 

### the part of

### the government's representative

### to bind

### the government in 

### contract. See 

### Kam-Almaz

### v. United States, 

### 682 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 

### Plaintiff 

### has offered 

## no evidence 

## of

## a valid contract between plaintiff 

### and the government, nor does he elaborate on how provisions of

### the United States Constitution referring to

### the Executive Branch establish a contract. Plaintiff has failedto demonstrate
avalid contract, or demonstrated in any of his claims that his claims are properly before this court. The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over all Mr. Nie's claims.


### Along 

### with 

### his complaint, 

### plaintiff

### filed 

### an application

## to proceed 

### in forma 

### pauperis

## on September 

### 25, 2015. 

### His application indicates 

### that 

### he

## is presently incarcerated. As required by28 U.S.C. S 1915(aX2) 

### (2012),Mr. Nie has included atrust fund account statement covering the six-month period prior to the filing

### of his complaint 

### along 

### with his application. 

### Mr. Nie states 

### he does not have 

### any cash, 

### or money in checking, savings, and does not own any real estate, stocks, bonds, notes, automobiles
or othervaluable property.



### ln order 

### to provide access 

### to this court 

### to those 

### who cannot pay

### thefiling fees mandated 

### by RCFC 77.1(c) (2015), the statute at

### 28 U.S.C. 

### g 1915 permits 

### a court to 

### allow plaintiffs 

### to file 

### a complaint 

### without payment 

### of fees

### or security under certain circumstances.The standard in28 

### U.s.c. g 1915(a)(1) for informa pauperis eligibility is "unable 

### to pay such 

### fees 

### or give security therefor." Determination 

### of what constitutes "unable

### to pay"

### or unable

### to "give security therefor," and, therefore, whether

### to allow a 

### plaintiff

### to proceed 

### in forma oauperis 

### is left 

### tothe discretion 

### of

### the presiding judge, based 

### on 

### the information submitted by

### the plaintiff 

### or plaintiffs. See, 

### e.q., Rowland v. 

### Cal. Men's Colonv. 

### Unit

## ll Men's Advisorv Council, 

### 506 U.S. 194, 

### 217-18 (1993);

11Fuentes 

### v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 85, 92 (2011). In Fiebelkorn v. United States, the

United States Court of Federal Claims indicated: 

## []he threshold

### for a motion 

### to proceed informa pauperis is not high: The statute requires thatthe applicant be "unable 

### to pay such fees." 28 U.S.C. 

### S 1915(a)(1).

### To be "unable 

### to pay such fees" means 

### that paying such 

### fees would constitute 

### a serious hardship 

### on 

### the plaintiff, not

### that such payment would render plaintiff destitute.

Fiebelkorn 

### v. United 

### States,77 Fed. Cl.

### 59,62 (2007); see also Haves

### v. United States,

7 1 Fed. C|. 366, 369 (2006).

When the person submitting a request to proceed informa pauperis is a prisoner, 

### 28 U.S.C. 

### S 1915(aX2) requires 

### that 

### the prisoner submit, 

### along

### with 

### the affidavit required bysubsection (a)(1), a certified copy of:


### [T]hetrust 

### fund account statement 

### (or institutional equivalent)

### for the prisoner 

### for the 6-month period immediately preceding 

### the filing 

### of the 

### complaint

### or notice 

### of appeal, obtained

### from

### the appropriate 

### official of each prison atwhich the prisoner is or was confined.



### 28 U.S.C. 

### S 1915(a)(2); 

### see also Matthews 

### v. United 

### States,72 Fed. 

### Cl.274,277 (2006), recons. denied 73 Fed. Cl. 524 

### (2006). Inthe affidavit required under 28 U.S.C. S 

### 191s(aXl), 

### a prisoner must further "state 

### the nature of

### the action, defense 

### or appeal and affiant's belief that the person is entitled to redress." 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 1915(a)(1).



### A prisoner 

### is "'charged

### with knowingwhat 

### forms are required,"' especially 

### if the individual has previouslyfiled applications 

### to proceed in forma 

### pauperis. Resendez v. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. 283, 286 (2010) (quoting Piskanin v. Court of Common Pleas 

### of Lehiqh Cntv. & all of its Judqes, 359 F.App'x 276, 278 (3d. Cir. 2009)). Although Mr. 

### Nie's lack

### of income 

### and current incarceration may 

### qualify him

### for informa pauperis status, 

### and although plaintiff submitted 

### the copy 

### of his prison trust 

### fund statement, as discussed above, his complaint is being dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiffs comolaint 

### is DISMISSED. The Clerk 

### of 

### the Court 

### shall enter JUDGMENT consistent with this Order.



# ..t:
MARIAN 

### BLANK HORN 

### Judge IT IS SO ORDERED.

tz