# tl 'tr r:"q .1 E 

## I $

# * 

# " ,o r., ',! r.l"li $c 

# llntbt @nitd $rtatts @ourt of

# /e[prs[ @kims Pro Se 

### No. 15-1198C 

### (Filed: January 

### 12,2016 |

### Not for Publication) 

# FILED
JAN 

# | 2 :$l$ U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CI.AIMS 

### LIVIA SCOTTO. 

### Keyvords: Subject 

### Matter Jurisdiction; RCFC 

### I2(b)(l); Pro Se 

### Complaint; Recusal;28 U.S.C. $455 

### Plaintiff,

THE 

### UNITED STATES OF

### AMERICA,
Defendant.



### Livia M. Scotto, Y ahico, 

### FL, 

### Plaintiff pro se. 

### Daniel 

### B. Volk,Trial Attorney, 

### with whom were Reginald T. B/ades, Assistant 

### Director, Robert E. 

### Kirschman,

### Jr., Dftector, urd 

### Benjamin C. 

### Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant 

### Attomey General, 

### Commercial 

### Litigation Branch, 

### United States Department 

### of Justice, Washington, 

### DC, for Defendant. 

### OPINION AND ORDER Cunently before the 

### Court are 

### Plaintiffs motion

### for recusal 

### of the undersigned judge, ECF 

### No. 8, andthe

### govemment's motion to dismiss 

### for lack 

### of subject matter 

### jurisdiction under Rules 

### of the Court 

### of Federal 

### Claims (RCFC) 

## l2(bxl), ECF 

### No. 6. 

### For the reasons set

### forth below, the 

### PlaintifPs motion for recusal is 

### DENIED and the 

### govemment's motion to dismiss is 

### GRANTED. 

### BACKGROUND Plaintiff 

### Livia M. Scotto 

### filed a p19 se 

### complaint inthis caseon October 13, 2015. ECF 

### No. 1.The 

### factual allegations 

### in her 

### complaint are

### limited and somewhat 

### diffrcult to 

### follow. They concem the "causation 

### of torture, leukemia, 

### property conversion, larceny, [and] assaults" by the 

### United States 

### in cormection 

### with "atomic veteran related damages

### for leukemia deaths." See

### Compl. at 1.1 She seeks redress in the 

### form 

### ofa "judgment 

### for

$990 

### billion USD." Id. On December 

### l, 2015, the govemment moved to dismiss 

### Ms. Scotto's 

### complaint under 

### RCFC 12(bXl ), arguing thatthe 

### Court lacked subject matter 

### jurisdiction over Ms. Scotto's claims. 

### Def. 

### Mot.to Dismiss at 1. 

### DISCUSSION 

# I. Motion 

### for Recusal As noted above, the 

### plaintiffhas frled a 

### motion requesting that the undersigned recuse herself 

### from this case.

### Ajudge must recuse 

### herself"in any proceeding 

### inwhich [the

### judge's] impartiality might reasonably be questioned." 28 

### U.S.C. g455(a). 

### This objective test mandates recusal 

### "when a reasonable person, 

### knowing all the facts,

### would question the

### judge's impartiality." Allphin v. 

### United States, 758 

### F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2014) 

### (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co.

### v. Bausch 

### & Lomb. Inc., 882 

### F.2d 1556, 1568 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1989)). Grounds 

### for recusal include 

### notonly actual personal bias or prejudice, but also the appearance 

### ofpartiality. See 28 

### U.S.C. $455(b). 

### However, 

### ajudge is presumed 

### to be 

### impartial, and the movant bears a 

### "heavy burden" of proving otherwise. See 

### Baldwin Hardware Com.v. FrankSu Enter. 

### Com., 78 F.3d 550, 557 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1996). 

### Ms. Scotto premises her 

### motion on purported 

### "judicial misconduct,' and ,.abuse

## of power" bythe undersigned. See 

### Pl.'s 

### Mot. for Recusal at4. 

### However, she has not pointed to any factual bases substantiating these claims. 

### Accordingly, the undersigned

### will not recuse herself 

### from this case, and 

### Plaintiff s

### motion seeking recusal is 

### DENIED. 

# [. Motion to Dismiss 

### Under 

### RCFC

## l2(bxf) The 

### Court of Federal 

### Claims is acourt 

### of 

### "limitedjurisdiction.,' 

## E&, Marcum 

### LLP v. 

### United States, 753 

### F.3d 1380, 1382 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2014). The 

### court's primary grant

### of jurisdiction is

### found in the 

### TuckerAct, which gives the court

### jurisdiction ,,to render 

### judgment upon any 

### claim against the 

### United States founded either upon the 

### Constitution, or any

### Act ofCongress or any 

### regulation

### ofan 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. $ 

### la9l(a)(1). The

### Tucker

### Act thus waives the sovereign 

### immunity of the 

### United States 

### toallow asuit 

### for money damages. 

### United States 

### v. 

### Mitchell,463 U.S. 

### 206,212 (1983). 

### However, 

### it does

### not confer any substantive rights on a

### plaintiff. United States 

### v.

### Testan,424U.5.392,398 (1976). Therefore, 

### to 

### ' Beyond this case, 

### Ms. Scotto has

### filed many other complaints 

### in several 

### different jurisdictions, which she has characterized as

### "related" to

### this one. See

### Compl. at

### 2-4 (listing "related" cases 

### Ms. Scotto has

### filed). Inaddition, she

### previously 

### filed a

### claim to the Department 

### of Veterans

### Affairs 

### (VA) requesting a

### finding 

### of service connection 

### for leukemia, 

### which the

## vA denied because there was 

### "no evidence

### ofa current diagnosis

### of leukemia." See Scotto 

### v. 

### McDonald,620 Fed.

### App'x 913,913 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2015) (per curiam).invoke the 

### court's Tucker Act

### jurisdiction, a

### plaintiff must 

### identifu an independent source



### ofa substantive 

### right to money damages 

### from the 

### United States 

### arising out

### ofa conftact, statute, regulation, 

### or constitutional provision. Jan's 

### Helicopter Serv.. Inc.

### v. Fed. 

### AviationAdmin., 525 

### F.3d 1299,1306 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2008); see also Golden 

### Pacific Bancorp v. 

### United States, 15 

### F.3d 1066, 1076 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1994). 

### In deciding a 

### motion to dismiss 

### for lack

### ofsubject matter 

### jurisdiction, the

### court accepts astrue 

### all undisputed facts 

### in the pleadings and draws 

### all reasonable inferences 

### in favor 

### ofthe plaintiff. Trusted 

### Integration. Inc.v. 

### United States, 659 

### F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed. 

### Cir. 201 1). 

### Further, 

### it is

### well established that complaints 

### filed by p19 se 

### plaintiffs (as isthis one) are held 

### to "less stringent standards than

### formal pleadings drafted 

### by lawyers." Haines

### v. 

### Kemer,404 U.S. 519,520 (1972). Nonetheless, even 

### pro se

### plaintiffs must persuade the 

### court that

### jurisdictional requirements have been met. Bemard v. 

### United States,59 Fed. 

### Cl.497, 499 (2004), 

### affd,98 Fed.

### App'x 860 (Fed. 

### Cir.2004). Applying these standards, the Court concludesthat 

### it lacks subject matter 

### jurisdiction over 

### Ms. Scotto's claims. 

### Ms. Scotto's allegations 

### of "causation 

### of torture, leukemia, 

### property conversion, larceny, 

### [and] assault" can 

### only be construed as

### alleging either 

### criminal violations or

### tort claims. The Court 

### of Federal Claims, however, lacks any 

### jurisdiction over 

### criminal matters. See Upshaw 

### v. United States, 599 Fed. 

### App'x 387, 388 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2015) (per 

### curiam) (holding thatthe Court 

### ofFederal Claims' 

### jurisdiction "does 

### not extend

### to cases 

### involving criminal law"). Likewise, becausetheTucker 

### Act expressly excludes 

### from its coverage claims 

### "sounding in

### tort," this 

### Court lacks 

### jurisdiction over any 

### tort claims. 28 

### U.S.C. $ la91(a)(1); see also 

### Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 

### 621,623 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1997)) 

### (holding thatthe Court 

### of Federal 

### Claims "lacks 

### jurisdiction over

### tort actions against the 

### United States").

### Accordingly, the Court cannot assert 

### jurisdiction over any 

### of Ms. Scotto's claims. 

### CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, 

### Plaintiff s

### motion for recusal is 

### DENIED, and the government's 

### motion to dismiss is 

### GRANTED. 

### Plaintiff s

### complaint is hereby dismissed

### without prejudice. Each side shall bear its owrr costs, The 

### Clerk is directed 

### to enter 

### judgment accordingly.



### IT IS SO

### ORDERED.



### ELAINE D. 

### KAPLAN Judge 

# 1t