# 3Jn tbr Wnitrb ~tatrs <!Court ofjf 

# rbrral <!Claitns No. 19-988T (Filed: September 24, 2019) 

### (NOT TO BE PUBLISHED) ) 

### REGINALD CUPID NOBLE ESTATE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) )**~** ) ) 

### UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. )



## ______________ ) Reginald CupidNoble,

### prose, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Sophia Siddiqui, Attorney, Court ofFederal Claims Section, Tax Division, United States Department ofJustice, Washington, D.C., for defendant. With her onthe briefwere Richard E. Zuckerman, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division, and David

### I. Pincus, Chief, Comt ofFederal Claims Section, Tax Division, United States Department ofJustice, Washington, D.C. 

### OPINION AND ORDER LETTOW, Senior Judge. PlaintiffReginald Noble has brought suit inthis court alleging a breach offiduciary duties bythe trustees ofhis bankruptcy estate and past due pension amounts owed him by his former employer, the Southeastern Pennsylvania TransportationAuthority ("SEPT A"). He seeks "immediate removal" ofthe trustees and punitive damages against SEPTA inthe amount offive million dollars. Comp!. at 4. Because this court lacks subject-matterjurisdiction, Mr. Noble's claims are dismissed. 

### BACKGROUND As far as the court can determine, Mr. Noble's complaint appears to make two claims: one against the trustees ofhis bankruptcy estate and the other against SEPTA. Mr. Noble claims to be the inheritor ofa bankrupt estate. 

### See Comp!. at 2. He avers that the estate's two "[t]rustees ex-officio" are the state ofPennsylvania and the United States and alleges that unnamed "corporate employees" filled out forms to "falsely imply" that he was deceased and therefore unable to inherit the estate. Comp!. at 2. Because he is still living, Mr. Noble asserts,the trustees lackjurisdiction and should be removed from exercising further control over the estate's deposit accounts. 

### See Comp!. at 3. Mr. Noble also worked at SEPTA for sixteen years, from 1979 to 1995, when he "resigned in good standing." Comp!. at 4. He asse1ts that his pension has fully vested, but despite multiple attempts in contacting SEPTA, the pension has not yet been paid. 

### See Comp!. at 4. He seeks the recovery ofhis pension and punitive damages inthe amount offive million dollars. Comp!. at 4. Mr. Noble filed his complaint with this court on July 9, 2019. 

### See Comp!. The United States filed a motionto dismiss for lack ofsubject-matterjurisdictionpursuantto Rule 12(b )(1) ofthe Rules ofthe Court ofFederal Claims ("RCFC") on September 10, 2019. Def.'s Motion to Dismiss ("Def.'s Mot."), ECFNo. 8. 

### STANDARDS FOR DECISION 

### Rule l 2(b)(l)

- Lackof Subject-Matter Jurisdiction The Tucker Act provides this court withjurisdiction over "any claim against the United States founded either uponthe 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 orunliquidated damages in cases not sounding intort." 28 U.S.C. § 149l(a)(l). To invoke this comt's Tucker Actjurisdiction, "aplaintiffmust identify a separate source of substantive law that creates the right to money damages." 

### Fisher v. UnitedStates, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 

### (en bane in relevant part) (citing 

### UnitedStates v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 216 (1983); 

### UnitedStates v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976)). Ifa plaintifffails to do so, this court "should [dismiss] for lack ofsubject matterjurisdiction." 

### Jan's Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. FederalAviationAdmin., 525 F.3d 1299, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting 

### Greenlee Cty. v. UnitedStates, 487 F.3d 871,876 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Mr. Noble, as plaintiff, must establishjurisdiction by a preponderance ofthe evidence. 

### See TrustedIntegration, Inc. v. UnitedStates, 659 F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing 

### Reynolds v. Army &

### Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). 1 "Subject matterjurisdiction is an inquiry that this comt must raise 

### sua sponte." Metabolite Labs., Inc. v. Laboratory Corp. of Am. Holdings, 370 F.3d 1354, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

### "Ifa court lacks jurisdiction to decide the merits ofa case, dismissal is required as a matter oflaw." 

### Gray v. UnitedStates, 69 Fed. CL 95, 98 (2005) (citing

### Exparte Mccardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506, 514 (1868); 

### Thoen v. UnitedStates, 765 F.2d 1110, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); 

### see also RCFC 12(h)(3)

1 A court may "grant the

### prose litigant leeway on procedural matters, such as pleading requirements." 

### McZea/v. SprintNextel Corp., 501 F.3d 1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing 

### Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980) ("An unrepresented litigant should not be punished for his failure to recognize subtle factual or legal deficiencies in his claims.")). But this leniency cannot extend to lesseningjurisdictionalrequirements. 

### See Kelley v. Secretary, UnitedStates Dep 't of Labor, 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ("[A] court may not

... take a liberal view of

... jurisdictional requirement[s] and set a different rule for prose litigants only.").

2

### ("If

### the court dete1mines at any time that it lacks subject-matterjurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action."). ANALYSIS 

### As an initial matter, Mr. Noble fails to provide a "short and plain statement ofthe grounds for the court'sjurisdiction." 

### Ruther v. UnitedStates, No. 18-ll l0C, 2018 WL 5095451, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 17, 2018) (citing RCFC 8(a)), 

### aff'd, No. 2019-1230 (Fed. Cir. May I, 2019) (per curiam). He does not cite or identify any federal statutes or regulations, or moneymandating constitutional provisions, that would provide the court withjurisdiction, and his complaint is unavailing on this basis alone. More importantly, this court lacks subject-matterjurisdiction over Mr. Noble's complaint because this court can only hear claims against the United States. 

### SeeAnderson v. UnitedStates, 117 Fed. Cl. 330, 331 (2014) (finding the Court ofFederal Claims lacksjurisdiction "over any claims alleged against states, localities, state and local govermnent entities, or state and local government officials and employees"). Likewise, this court lacksjurisdiction over claims "sounding in tort." 28 U.S.C. § 

### 149l(a)(l). Mr. Noble's complaint alleges a claim against SEPTA, which is not a federal entity. To the extent that the complaint mentions the United States, it does so only in the context ofwhat are apparently allegations ofa breach offiduciary duty. But "[b]reach offiduciary duty is generally classified as a tort" and therefore this court lacksjurisdiction over such claims. 

### Newby v. UnitedStates, 57 Fed. Cl. 283, 294 (2003) (citations omitted). As a result, this comi cannot exercisejurisdiction over any ofMr. Noble's claims and must dismiss his complaint.2CONCLUSION 

### For the reasons stated, Mr. Noble's complaint shall be DISMISSED without prejudice for lack ofsubject-matterjurisdiction. The clerk shall enterjudgment accordingly. No costs. 

### It is so ORDERED.



### Charles F. Lettow Senior Judge

2

### The United States District Court for the District ofNew Jersey also dismissed an action brought by Mr. Noble. 

### See Noble v. Thalheimer, No. 12-CV-04198 (KM), 2013 WL 396161 (D.N.J. Jan. 31, 2013). The court ruled that Mr. Noble's amended complaint "cannot be construed as supplying facts in support ofa claim that would entitle the plaintiffto relief." 

### Id., 2013 WL 396161, at *3.

3