I 

Jf n tbe Wniteb ~tate.s QCourt of jf eberal QClaims 

No. 15-1418C 

(Filed J anuary 30, 2017) 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

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

* 

* 

RON HADDAD, Jr., * 

* 

Plaintiff, * 

v. * 

* 

THE UNITED STATES, * 

* 

Defendant. * 

* 

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

WOLSKI, Judge. 

FILED 

JAN 3 O 2017 

U.S. COURT OF 

FEDERAL CLAIMS 

This is the fourth in a series of cases filed in our court by plaintiff Ron 

Haddad, Jr., concerning alleged violations oflaw in connection with his conviction of 

federal crimes in a U.S. district court, and with his efforts to challenge that 

conviction in the district court and the Sevent h Circuit. This complaint was filed 

before his three earlier-filed cases were dismissed for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. See Haddad v. United States (Haddad I), Nos. 15-640C & 15-820C, 

2015 WL 7730933 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 30, 2015); Haddad v. United States (Haddad II), 

No. 15-1075C, 2016 WL 5660266 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 30, 2016). Thus, it is 

understandable that Mr. Haddad, representing himself in these matters, failed to 

realize at that time that our court h as not been given the authority by Congress to 

address the matters of which he complains. But as explained below, even if 

everything Mr. Haddad alleges is true, our court is without power to address it. 

Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss this case pursuant to Rule 12(b)(l) of the 

Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC) is GRANTED due to 

plaintiff's failure to state a claim within this court's subject-matter jurisdiction. 
I. BACKGROUND 

On November 19, 2015, Mr. Haddad filed a complaint purporting to name 14 

individuals as defendants.I In complaints filed in our court, the United States is 

the only proper defendant. See RCFC lO(a); see also Stephenson v. United States, 58 

Fed. Cl. 186, 190 (2003). Taking plaintiffs pro se status into consideration, the 

Court construes his complaint to be against the United States and proceeds on that 

basis. 

Plaintiff is currently serving a 150-month prison sentence after being 

convicted of 30 separate counts of mailing threatening communications in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. §§ 875(c) and 876(c). United States v. Haddad, No. 09 CR 115, 2015 

WL 161659, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 13, 2015). His trial was held before Judge Virginia 

M. Kendall on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. 

Id. On June 13, 2011, the Executive Committee of the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Illinois (Executive Committee) issued an order limiting 

Mr. Haddad's ability to file new civil prose cases before that court, citing thirteen 

cases Mr. Haddad filed before that court that had been "primarily dismissed due to 

lack of standing, failure to state a claim, lack of federal jurisdiction, duplicate filing, 

or frivolous complaint." Executive Committee Order, In re Ron Haddad, Jr., No. 11 

C 3934, at 1 (N. Dist. Ill. June 13, 2011), ECF No. 1. 

As the basis for our court's jurisdiction, Mr. Haddad cites the following 

provisions of the United States Constitution: Article I, clause 7;2 Article II, section 

4; Article III, section 1; Article VI, clause 23; and the Fourth, Eighth, and 

Fourteenth Amendments. Pl.'s Compl. ifif 1-2. Plaintiff claims that the named 

defendants lied and committed fraud and breach of trust against him, resulting in a 

false indictment and wrongful conviction and imprisonment. Compl. ii 1, 2. Judge 

Kendall is accused multiple times in the complaint oflying and enabling the named 

1 Plaintiff names as defendants Asst. U.S. Attorney William Ridgway; current and 

former U.S. Attorneys Zachary Fardon, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, and Gary Shapiro; 

FBI agents Alex Reina and Adam Schultz; attorneys Andrea E. Gambino, Howard 

D. Weisman, Robert S. Nathan, and Nishay K. Sanan; federal defender Piyush 

Chandra; U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo; district court clerk Thomas G. 

Bruton; presentencing investigator Sarah Kieckhafer; and John Does 1-100. 

Compl. at 1. Judge Castillo and Mr. Bruton were also named as defendants in 

Haddad II, and Ms. Kieckhafer was named in Haddad I. 

2 The Court interprets this provision to refer to Article I, section 3, clause 7, which 

concerns the punishment for impeachment. 

3 The Court interprets this provision to refer to Article III, section 1, which 

establishes judges' tenure in office during good behavior. 

- 2 -
defendants to do the above-referenced acts. 4 Id. iii! 1, 3, 4. He further alleges that 

on February 9, 2009, "property belonging to [him and his family]" was wrongfully 

seized under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP). Id. if 1. Plaintiff's 

requested relief is "the immediate complete return of all [the improperly] seized 

property,'' id. ii 1, an award of $20 million, and a lifetime ban on further public 

service by the named defendants, id. at 6. 

The government filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim under RCFC 12(b)(l) and 

12(b)(6). Def.'s Mot. Dismiss at 1 (Def.'s Mot.). The government argues that Mr. 

Haddad does not identify a money-mandating provision which gives this court 

jurisdiction, and that Mr. Haddad's grievances, which relate to his criminal 

conviction and case management matters before the U.S. District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois, cannot create a basis for an action in this court. Id. at 

5-6. Defendant also contends that even if the complaint were construed as seeking 

compensation for unjust conviction and imprisonment under 28 U.S.C. § 1495, 

dismissal would be warranted. Def.'s Mot. at 7. 

Although plaintiff has submitted numerous documents after the 

government's motion was filed, none appear to be a response to that motion. 

Nonetheless, taking Mr. Haddad's pro se status into consideration, the Court has 

scrutinized all of his filings in this case, as well as pages from a document filed in 

Haddad II that plaintiff intended for filing in this matter, see No. 15-1075, ECF No. 

12, at 6-13, in an attempt to find some basis for jurisdiction over this case. As 

explained below, no basis for our court's jurisdiction has been found. 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction 

Under RCFC 12(b)(l), this court must dismiss claims that do not fall within 

its subject-matter jurisdiction. When considering a motion to dismiss a case for lack 

of subject-matter jurisdiction, courts will accept as true all factual allegations the 

non-movant made and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to 

that party. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); Pixton v. B&B Plastics, 

Inc., 291 F.3d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (requiring that on a motion to dismiss for 

lack of subject-matter jurisdiction this court views "the alleged facts in the 

complaint as true, and if the facts reveal any reasonable basis upon which the non4 Judge Kendall was the named defendant in two consolidated cases Mr. Haddad 

previously filed before this court, which were subsequently dismissed. See Haddad 

v. United States, Nos. 15-640C & 15-820C, 2015 WL 7730933 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 30, 

2015). 

- 3 -
movant may prevail, dismissal is inappropriate"); CBY Design Builders v. United 

States, 105 Fed. Cl. 303, 325 (2012). 

Although a pro se plaintiffs filings are to be liberally construed, see Erickson 

v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), this lenient standard cannot save claims which 

are outside this court's jurisdiction from being dismissed. See, e.g., Henhe v. United 

States, 60 F.3d 795, 799 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The party invoking a court's jurisdiction---

here, Mr. Haddad---bears the burden of establishing it and must ultimately do so by 

a preponderance of the evidence. See McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. of 

Ind., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936); Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 

746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Rocovich v. United States, 933 F.2d 991, 993 (Fed. Cir. 

1991). 

B. Analysis 

Taking into consideration Mr. Haddad's pro se status by broadly construing 

his arguments and, of course, assuming that all of his allegations are true, the 

Court still finds that none of his claims fall within our jurisdiction. This court 

cannot entertain a case unless a jurisdictional basis has been properly invoked. 

For a statutory or constitutional violation to come within the jurisdiction of 

this court, the statute or clause allegedly violated must contain a provision that 

entitles one to money damages. See United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 

(1976); Contreras v. United States, 64 Fed. Cl. 583, 588 (2005); see also Eastport 

Steamship Corp. v. United States, 372 F.2d 1002, 1007 (Ct. Cl. 1976) (explaining 

that our court does not have jurisdiction to hear "every claim involving or invoking 

the Constitution"). None of the constitutional provisions Mr. Haddad cites are 

money-mandating provisions. Plaintiff cannot base our jurisdiction on violations of 

the Fourth and Eighth Amendments, as those amendments do not mandate the 

payment of money damages when violated. See Dupre v. United States, 229 Ct. Cl. 

706, 706 (1981) (Fourth Amendment); Trafny v. United States, 503 F.3d 1339, 1340 

(Fed. Cir. 2007) (Eighth Amendment). Further, to the extent plaintiff relies on the 

Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is not money-mandating. 

Smith v. United States, 709 F.3d 1114, 1116 (Fed.Cir.2013). In addition, the 

Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to the actions of the federal government. 

Fry v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 500 (2006) (citing S.F. Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. 

Olympic Comm., 483 U.S. 522, 542 n.21 (1987)). 

The other portions of the Constitution identified by plaintiff similarly lack 

any reference to an entitlement to money damages for their violation. Two 

provisions concern the removal from and disqualification for federal office upon 

impeachment and conviction. U.S. CONST., art. I, § 3, cl. 7; id., art. II, § 2. Another 

explains that judges shall hold their offices during good behavior. Id., art. III, § 1. 

The last one makes the Constitution and proper legislation the supreme law of the 

land and binds judges to it. Id., art. VI, cl. 2. Other than the guarantee that federal 

- 4 -
judges will not have their compensation diminished while in office, id., art. III, § l; 

see United States v. Hatter, 532 U.S. 557, 560-61 (2001), no money mandate can be 

found among these provisions. And the statute mentioned in the complaint, 28 

U.S.C. § 455, deals with the circumstances when a judge shall disqualify herself and 

contains no provision for monetary relief, thus failing to support a claim within our 

jurisdiction. 

Nor can a basis for jurisdiction be found in provisions cited by plaintiff in 

other filings. See, e.g., Status Report at 1, ECF No. 13 (Feb. 5, 2016). In this 

context, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment is not money-mandating. 5 

Smith v. United States, 709 F.3d 1114, 1116 (Fed.Cir.2013). Nor is the Sixth 

Amendment. Dupre, 229 Ct. Cl. at 706. The provision in title 28 concerning 

declarations under penalty of perjury, 28 U.S.C. § 1746, says nothing about 

payment of money damages, and the habeas corpus provisions, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 

2254, have nothing to do with our court. And the criminal code provision 

concerning false declarations, 18 U.S.C. § 1623, neither provides for payment of 

money damages to private individuals nor supports the creation of any fiduciary 

duties on the part of the government.a In any event, our court lacks jurisdiction 

over violations of criminal law. See Stanwyck v. United States, 127 Fed. Cl. 308, 

313-15 (2016). 

Even if Mr. Haddad's allegations regarding the February 9, 2009 seizure of 

property could somehow be construed as raising a takings claim under the Fifth 

Amendment, the Court notes that the running of the six-year statute of limitation 

would place this claim outside of our jurisdiction. See John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 130, 132 (2008); 28 U.S.C. § 2501. 7 And as explained in 

Haddad II, 2016 WL 5660266, at *4, for our court to have jurisdiction over an 

unjust imprisonment claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1495, a plaintiff must allege and 

prove that his conviction has been reversed or set aside on the ground that he is not 

guilty or pardoned and that he did not commit the acts which were the basis of his 

conviction, in accordance with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2513(a). See Grayson 

v. United States, 141 Ct. Cl. 866, 869 (1958) (per curiam). Here, defendant has not 

5 The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment may only be a basis for our 

jurisdiction when a claim concerns an illegal exaction. See Aerolineas Argentinas v. 

United States, 77 F.3d 1564, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Coleman v. United States, No. 

13-431C, 2014 WL 949984, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 7, 2014). 

6 This provision is cited in Mr. Haddad's motion to add Judge Kendall as a party to 

this matter. See ECF No. 14 (Oct. 17, 2016) at 1. 

7 Mister Haddad's claim is actually based on a violation of Rule 41 of the Federal 

Rules of Criminal Procedure, see Compl. if 1, which provides for a remedy not in our 

court but "in the district where the property was seized," FED. R. CRIM. P. 4l(g). 

- 5 -
alleged that his conviction has been set aside --- to the contrary, he is currently 

serving a 150-month sentence in prison. Accordingly, section 1495 provides no basis 

for the exercise of jurisdiction over Mr. Haddad's case. 

To the extent that Mr. Haddad is requesting that this court review the 

actions of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, this court 

lacks jurisdiction. This court "does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of 

district courts ... relating to proceedings before those courts." Joshua v. United 

States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also Vereda, Ltda. v. United States, 271 

F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that our court is not an appellate 

tribunal, and "does not h ave jurisdiction to review the decisions of district courts"). 

Neither does this court have jurisdiction to "consider claims which amount to 

collateral attacks on criminal convictions." Perkins v. United States, No. 13-023C, 

2013 WL 3958350, at *3 (Fed. Cl. July 31, 2013); see also Stanwyck, 127 Fed. Cl. at 

313-15. 

As recounted above, our court lacks jurisdiction over the subject-matter of 

plaintiffs complaint, and dismissal is warranted under RCFC 12(b)(l). 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion to dismiss this case for lack 

of subject-matter jurisdiction, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(l), is GRANTED. The Clerk 

is directed to close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

- 6 -