# FILED

MAR2

### 5 ZOIO
U.S. COURT OF FEDERAT CI.AIMS 

# ()RIGINAT llr tbtffittttt\ $tuteg 

# [.ourt of

# /rlprsl @tuirns

No. 16-357C 

### Fifed: March 

### 25,2016

KENNETH

## LESLIECALDWELL,
*



# Plaintiff, *

v.

UNITED STATES, 

# Defendant,
*



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

Kenneth Leslie Caldwell, Billings, MT, pro se.



## ORDER

HORN. J.

FINDINGS OF FACT



### The plaintiff, Kenneth Leslie Caldwell, 

### filed

### a pro se complaint, 

### inthis court on March 21, 2016. 

### Plaintiffs complaint begins:

Pro se litigant Kenneth Leslie Caldwell presents this complaint against the United States regarding violations ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 

### $ 2000a, violations 

### of

### the Privacy Act

## of 1974, 

## 5 U.S.C.

### g 552a, and violations ofthe Sth and 8th Amendments tothe United States Constitution. The plaintiff wants money and preliminary injunction(s).

Plaintiff

### s complaint states 

### that "[t]he plaintiff knows 

### ifthere is refusal

### to take notice 

### of important subject matter because ofdiscrimination, it is contrary tothe Anti-Discrimination 

### Act 

### of 1964, 

### 42 U.S.C. 

### g

### 2000a.{ Of note, plaintiff continues: "The plaintiff knows 

### it is

1Plaintiff's complaint also alleges that:


### The plaintiff knows

### that 

### in

## 42 U.S.C. 

## g 2000a 

### (d) 

## it is stated that discrimination 

### or segregation 

### by 

### an establishment 

### is supported 

### by Statepossible illegal aliens are in place of people who pretend to be citizens. The plaintiff also

knows it is possible illegal aliens do illegal things indifferent sectors of industry. 

### lf illegal activities of illegal aliens are ignored, harm is possible."

Plaintiff also allegesthat: "The plaintiff knows 

### it is stated

### that no person shall be 

### deprived

## of life, liberty,

## or property 

### in the Sth Amendment 

## to the United States Constitution. The plaintiff knowsthat late responses and/or other events presented inthis complaint are violations ofthe 5thAmendment."2

In addition 

### to the Civil Right

### Act and

### the Fifth Amendment, plaintiff cites 

### to the EighthAmendment tothe United States Constitution, indicating that:

The plaintiff knows 

### it is stated in

### the 8th Amendment to

### the United States Constitution that excessive bail shall not be required and thatthere should 

### not be infliction 

### of cruel 

### and unusual punishments. 

### The plaintiff alleges excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishment was imposed when hewas held in a case ofwhichthe plaintiff knows was based onfalse statements, 

### where 

### no one was hurt physically, 

### but had charges

### which 

## if he were convicted would serve a minimum mandatory 

### of 15years if convicted. The plaintiff knows he stated itwas of national importance that he be released, but bail remained at $75,000 and the plaintiffwas not released. The plaintift knows this could be cruel and unusual because the plaintiff has seen more 

### than one casefrom 

### the same county 

### that involved 

## a threat 

### or even successfulweapon attack which 

### did not show the oerson arresled 

### to have 

### the charge of theweapon enhancement charge that carries 

### a minimum 

### of 15years mandatory upon conviction.
Despite the foregoing, 

### it appears

### that an allegation in

### the complaint important to the plaintiff isthat: "The plaintiff knows that in2015, medical records ofthe plaintiff were givento attorneys of a defendant without the 

### plaintiffs consent because he did not sign anything regarding the release of his health records except possibly inAugust 2015 if he signed

### to receivethem himself." Plaintiff also allegesthat, "[t]he plaintiff knows that the



### action 

### within

### the meaning 

### ofthis subchapter 

### if such discrimination or segregation 

### ( 1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required
or enforced by officials of the state or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of

### the State 

### or political subdivision thereof. The plaintiff alleges that 

### this law is relevant because 

### the events 

### that are described in this complaint involvethe courtswhich might be considered public because they are used bythe public. The plaintiff alleges other provisions ofthe Civi RightsAct of 1964, 42 U.S.C. g2000a, might also be relevant. 

### 2

## lt not clear 

### from

### the complaint 

### how 

### any late responses

### would violate

### the Fifth Amendment, but plaintiff refers to numerous other lawsuits hefiled and alleges the other party either responded to hisfilings late or not at all.documentation of his health information remained public until 112112016. lt might still be

available tothe oublic."
Regarding the merits of plaintiffs claims, the complaint states that:


### The plaintiff knows 

### that his complaint 

### should 

### not be denied 

### for being frivolous, lacking merit, 

### not having jurisdiction, having improper venue, or failure to state a grounds 

### for relief, because the case is important if notfor the life ofthe plaintiff, or for the life of others, is important because thevery foundation offreedom and liberty inAmerica isat risk of being broke down.

The complaint continues, "[t]he plaintiff had difficultyfinding citation(s)that applyto this
case. The process of searching for relevant citations was time consuming. lt is

### a request tothe courtthat any lack of citations be overlooked because statutes and facts are clearly legible, the plaintiff knowsthis case is important, and situations may be unprecedented."3 For damages, "[t]he total amount of moneythe plaintiff demands for an instant preliminary injunction 

### is $200,000, because inefutable evidence 

### for violations 

### ofthe privacy 

### Act of 1976, 

### 5 U.S.C. 552a 

### exists. 

### lt is important

### tothe plaintiff 

### that 

### this be expedited. The plaintiff wants money and hopesthat itcan be given by ex parte order."

Plaintiff further indicates "[t]he plaintiff hopes for allthe money he isentitledto.

### A bank account number

### of the plaintiff

### with 

### the routing number 

### is submitted 

### with this Complaint for the deposit of $100,000 ofthe $200,000 preliminary injunction. The plaintiff has no preference on how he receives all remaining funds, as long asthey are received 

### in an expedited manner." In addition, plaintiff states 

### that "[t]he plaintiff endures duress 

### and sets 

### forth a demand forjudgment against 

### the United States

### to have 

### a permanent injunction 

### to not be arrested, equivalent 

### to diplomatic immunity.

### The plaintiff hopes the injunction can be granted by ex parte order as soon as possible."


### 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 thanformal 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. Gambte, 429


## 3 Plaintiff 

### also emphasizes 

## in capital lefters: "SOMETHING 

### MUST 

### BE DONE.' (capitalization 

### in original). Plaintiff 

### also emphasizes 

### that "[t]he plaintiff knows 

### that 

### it is possible that a complete lack of compassion exists for human life if it involves the plaintiff having success,which would be contrary to law. The plaintiff knows it is possible that no matter what, 

### the plaintiff 

### will lose 

### ifthere exists 

### an enemy

### that has power

### to keep him from success."U.S. 97, 106 (1976), reh'q denied, 429 U.S. 1066 (1977); Matthews v. United States, 750

F.3d 1320, 

### 1322(Fed.Cr.2MQ; Diamond v. United States, 115 Fed. Cl.516, S24,atf d, 603 F.App'x 947 (Fed. Cir.2015), cert. denied 135 S. Ct. 1909 (201S). "However, "'[t]here is no duty on the part ofthetrial court to create a claimwhich [the plaintiffl has not spelled 

### out 

### in his [or her] pleading.""' Lengen 

### v. United 

### States, 100 Fed. 

### Cl.317,328 (2011) (alterations 

### in original) (quoting Scoqin 

### v. United 

### States,33 Fed. 

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

### v. Nat'l Travelers Life Ins. Co.
, 518 F

### .2d 1167


### , 1169 (6th Cir. 1975))); see also Bussiev. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. 89, 

### 94,aft'd,443 F.

### App'x 542 (Fed. Cn.2011); Minehan v. United 

### states, 75 Fed.

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

### "while a pro se plaintiff is heldto 

### 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's jurisdiction 

### by a preponderance ofthe evidence." Riles v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 163, 165 (2010) (citing Huqhes 

### v. Rowe, 449 U.S. at g and Tavlor

### v. United States, 303 F.3d 1357, 1359 (Fed. 

### cir.) ("Plaintiff bears

### the burden 

### of showing 

### jurisdiction 

### by

## a preponderance 

### of the evidence."), reh'o 

### and reh'q 

### en banc 

### denied (Fed. 

### Cir. 2002)); 

### see also Shelkofskv v. United

### states, '119 Fed.

### cl. 133, 139 (2014) ("[Mlhile the court may excuse

### ambiguitiel 

### in

### a pro 

### se 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 hetd t,o

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

### to mereformalities 

### does not relieve the burden 

### to meetjurisdictional requirements."' (quoting Minehan 

### v. United 

### states, 75 Fed. Cl. at 253).

It iswell established that "'subject-matter jurisdiction, because it involves acourt's power 

### to hear 

### a case, can never be forfeited orwaived."' Arbauqh v.

### y & H Corp., 546 

## ll:9. 5001 

### 514 (2006) (quoting United States

### v. Cotton, s3S U.S. 

### 625,

### 630 tnOZ)). "[F]ederal courts have 

### an independent obligation to ensure that they 

### do not exceedthe 

### scope 

### of their jurisdiction, 

### and therefore 

### they must raise 

### and decide jurisdictional 

### questions 

### that 

### the parties 

### either overlook

### or elect not

### to press." Henderson 

### ex rel. Henderson 

### v. shinseki, 562 

### u.s. 428,434 (2011);see also Gonzalez 

### v.Thalei, 132

### s. 

### cr. 641, 648 (2012) 

### ("when a requirement goes to subject-matter jurisdiction, courts are obligated 

### to consider sua sponte issues 

### that

### the parties have disclaimed 

### or have not presented."); Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 

### 17,94 (2010) (.Courts have an independent obligation 

### to determine whether subject-matterjurisdiction exists, even 

### when no pany challenges it." (citingArbauqh v. Y & H

### corp., 546

### u.s. ats14)); special Devices. Inc. v. 

### oEA. lnc., 269 F.3d 

### 1340,1342 (Fed. 

### cir. 2001) 

### ('lAl court has a outy 

### to rnquire into its jurisdiction to hear and decide a case." (citing Johannsen v. 

### pav Less Druo Siores 

### N.w.. 

### hg.,918 F.2d 160, 161 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1990)); 

### View Enq'q. Inc.

### v. RoboticVision 

### Sys- Inc. 115 F.3d 962, 

### 963 (Fed. 

### cir. 1997) 

### ("[c]ourts must always took 

### to their;urisoiction, whetherthe parties raise the issue or not."). "objections to atribunal's 

### jurisdiition can be 

### raised

### at anytime, even by 

### a partythat once conceded 

### the tribunal's subject-matter jurisdiction over the controversy." Sebelius v.Auburn Req'l Med.

### ctr., 133

### s. 

## it. atz

,gzq (2013);see alsoArbauqh v. Y 

### & H 

### corp., 546

### u.s. at 506 ("The objectionthat afederal court lacks 

### subjeclmatter 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. Cirr.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 

### aftertrial and the entry ofjudgment." (citing Arbauoh 

### v.

### Y & H Corp., 

### 546 U.S. 

### at 50G-07)); Rick's Mushroom 

### Serv.. lnc.

### v. United States, 521 F.3d 1338, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("[A]ny party may challenge, 

### orthe court may raise sua sponte, subject mafter jurisdiction at any time." (citing Arbauqh v.

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

### v. United States, 379 F.3d 

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

### and reh'q 

### en bancdenied (Fed. Cn. 2004), 

### cert. denied, 

### 545 U.S. 1127 

### (2005); and Fanninq. Phillips & Molnar v.West, 160 F.3d 

### 717,720 (Fed. Cir. 1998))); Pikulin v. United 

### States,97 Fed. Cl.

### 71,76, aooeal dismissed, 

### 425F. App'x 902 (Fed. Cir.201 1). Infact, "[s]ubject matter jurisdiction isan inquirythat this court must raise sua sponfe, evenwhere



## . . . neither party has raised 

### this issue." Metabolite 

### Labs.. Inc.

### v. Lab. Corp. 

### of Am. 

### Holdinqs,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'o and reh'q en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2004), cert. qranted 

### inpa!sub. nom Lab. Corp. ofAm. 

### Holdinqsv. Metabolite Labs.. 

### Inc.,546 U.S. 975 (2005), cert. dismissed as improvidentlv qranted, 548 U.S. 124 (2006); see alsoAvid ldentification Svs.. Inc. v. Crystal 

### lmportCorp.,603 F.3d 

### 967,971(Fed. Cir.) 

### ("Thiscourt must always determine for itself whether it hasjurisdictionto 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).

Pursuant to

### 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 

### for the court'sjurisdiction," 

### and "a short and plain statement 

### ofthe claim showing that 

### the pleader 

### is entitled

### to relief." RCFC 8(a)(1), (2) (2015); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1), (2) (2016); see alsoAshcroftv. lqbal,556 U.S. 

### 662,677- 

### 78 (2009) 

### (citing Bell 

### Atl. Corp. 

### v. Twombly, 

### 550 U.S. 544, 

### 555-57, 570 (2007)). "Determination ofjurisdiction startswith the complaint, which must bewell-pleaded inthat 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, 2OB (2011); Gonzalez-McCaullev Inv. 

### Grp., Inc.

### v. United States, 

### 93 Fed. 

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

### Ct.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 

### plaintiffs factual allegations must 'raise a right 

### to relief above the speculative level' and cross 'the line from conceivable

### to olausible."' Three S Consultinq v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl.510, 523 (2012) (quoting Bell Afl. 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 inAshcroft

### v. lqbal, "[a] pleading that 

### offers'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of 

### a cause of actionwill not 

### do.' 550 U.S. at 555. Nor 

### does

### a complaint suffice 

### 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 grantsjurisdiction tothis court asfollows:

The United States Court of Federal Claims shall havejurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded either uponthe 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 intort.



### 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 1a91(a)(1) (2012). 

### As interpreted by

### the United States Supreme Court, the Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity to allow jurisdiction 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

### on federal 

### constitutional, statutory, 

### or regulatory 

### law mandating compensation 

### by the federal government for 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 bancdenied (Fed. 

### Cir.20O7),cprl. denied,552 U.S. 1142(2008); 

### Palmerv. 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 theTucker Act. The claim must be one for money damages against the United States

. . . ." United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. at216; see also United States v. 

### White MountainApache Tribe, 

### 537 U.S. 465, 

### 472 (2003); Smith

### v. United States, 709 

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

### denied, 134 

### S. Ct. 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

. . . identify asubstantive source of law that creates the right to recovery of money damages 

### againstthe United States."); Golden 

### v. United 

### States, 118 Fed. 

### C|,764,768(2014). In Ontario PowerGeneration. lnc. v. United States, 

### the United States Court ofAppealsfor

### the Federal Circuit identified three types 

### of monetary claims 

### for which

### jurisdiction is lodged in

### the united 

### states 

### court of Federal Claims. The court wrote:

The underlying monetary claims are ofthree types.

. . . First, claims alleging 

### the existence 

### of a contract between 

### the plaintiff and 

### the government fall 

### within 

### the Tucker 

### Act's

# waiver. Second, 

### the Tucker 

### Act's waiver 

### encompasses claims 

### where 

### "the plaintiff 

### has paid money 

### over 

### to the Government, directly or in effect, and seeks return of all or part ofthat sum." Eastport S.S. lCorp. 

### v. United States, 178 Ct. Ct. S99,

### 605-06,] 

### 3l2F.2d [1002,] 1007-08 [(1967)] (describing illegal exaction claims 

### as claims ,,in 

### which 

### 'the Government 

### has

### the citizen's money 

### in its pocket"' (quoting Clapp v. United 

### States,127 Ct. Cl.505, 117 F. Supp. 576, S8O (19S4))

. . . . Third, the Court of Federal Claims hasjurisdiction overthose claims where "money has not been paid but 

### the plaintiff asserts

### that he 

### is nevertheless entitled 

### to a payment from thetreasury." Eastport S.S.,

### 372 F.2d 

### at 1007. 

### Claims in this third category, 

### where 

### no payment 

### has been made

### to the government, either directly or in effect, require that the "particular provisionof law relied upon grants the claimant, expressly or by implication, a right to



### be paid 

### a certain sum." 

### ld.; see also ]United States 

### v. lTestan, 424 U.S. 1392,1 401-02 [1976] ("Where

### the United States 

### isthe defendant and the plaintiff is not suing for money improperly exacted or retained, the basis of the federal claim-whether 

### it be

### the Constitution, 

### a statute, 

### or a regulationdoes 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 

### bythe 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 Power Generation. Inc.

### v. United States, 369 F.3d 1298, '1301 (Fed. Cir. 2004);
see also Twp. of Saddle Brook v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 1

### 01, 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 lJ.S. 392, 4OO (1976)); see also United States v.White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S.

### a|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 

### of law granting monetary relief must be distinct from the Tucker 

### Act itself. See United States

### v. Navaio Nation, 556 U.S. at 290 (The Tucker Act does not create "substantive rights; [it issimply 

## 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, 

### and 

### the 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 Greentee 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

### TuckerAct."); Peoples v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 553, 

### 565-66 (2009).



### From

### the complaint, 

## it appears 

### that plaintiff 

### has assertedviolations 

## of his 

### constitutional 

### rights under 

### the Fifth 

### and Eighth Amendments

### to the United States Constitution, violations ofthe Civil Rights Act, and violations ofthe PrivacyAct. Insofar as plaintiff alleges aviolation 

### of his rights under 

### the FifthAmendment to

### the United

### states Constitution 

### for "late responses and/or 

### other events presented 

### in

### this complaint," the United States Court ofAppeals for 

### the Federal Circuit has held that this court does not possess jurisdiction to consider claims arising underthe Due Process Clauses ofthe 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. 

### i995)) (no jurisdiction 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 setfled 

### that 

### the Due Process 

### clauses

### of both

### the Fifth 

### and Fourteenth Amendments 

### do not mandate

### the payment 

### of money 

### andthus 

### do not provide 

### a cause 

### of action under the

### TuckerAct." (citing 

### LeBlancv. United

### States,50 F.3d 

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

259 (2013)); In 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 underthe Tucker Act."), reh'q and reh'q en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2006), cert. denied sub
nom. Scholl v. United States, 552 U.S. 940 (2007); Acadia Tech.. Inc. &GlobalWin Tech.. Ltd. v. United 

### States,458 F.3d 

### 1327,1334 (Fed. 

### Cir.2006); Collinsv. United 

### States,67 F.3d

### 284,288 (Fed. Cir.) ("[Tjhe 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 TuckerAct jurisdiction inthe courts"); Murravv. United States,817 F.2d 1580, 1583 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1987) (noting 

### that

### the Fifth Amendment 

### Due Process clause 

### does 

### not include language mandating the payment of money damages); Harperv. United States, 104 Fed. 

### Cl.287,291 n.5 (2012); Hampel v. United States, 97 Fed. Cl. 235, 238, aff

### d,429 F.

### App'x 995 (Fed. 

### Cit.2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 'l1OS (2012); McCullouqh v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 1

,4 (2006), apoeal 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

. . . nor

### the Privileges 

### and lmmunities Clause provides 

### a basis forjurisdiction in 

### this court because

### the Fifth Amendment is not 

### a source that mandates 

### the payment 

### of moneyto plaintiff."). Due process claims "must be heard in District Court." Kam-Almaz v. United States, 

### 96 Fed. Cl. 84, 89 (2011) (citing Acadia Tech.. Inc. & Globat Win Tech.. Ltd.

### v. United 

### States,458 F.3d 

### at 1334),

### affd,682 F.3d 1364 (Fed. 

### Cir.2012); see atso Hampel

### v. United States, 

### 97 Fed. 

### Cl. at

### 238. Therefore, 

### to the extent 

### that plaintiff is attempting to allege violations of his FifthAmendment rights, no such cause of action can be brought inthis court.
Similarly, insofar as plaintiff sclaims allege aviolation of his rights underthe Eighth Amendment to

### the United States Constitution for when he was "held in

### a case ofwhich the plaintiff knowswas based onfalse statements, where no onewas hurt physically, but had charges which if hewere convicted would serve a minimum mandatory 

### of 15years 

### if convicted, thisAmendment is not money-mandating and, therefore, jurisdiction to review these claims does not lie inthis 

### court. SeeTrafnv v. United States, S03 F.3d 1339, 1340 

### (Fed. Cir. 

### 2007) ("The Court 

### of Federal Claims 

### does not have jurisdiction over claims 

### arising under 

### the Eighth Amendment, 

### asthe Eighth Amendment 

### 'is not

## a moneymandating provision."') (citations omitted); see also Jiron

### v. United States, 118 Fed. Cl. 190, 199 (2014) ("Nor does

### the United States Court 

### of Federal Claims havejurisdiction 

## to adjudicate 

### claims under

### the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, 

### and Tenth Amendments to

### the United States Constitution."); Sellers 

### v. United States, 110 Fed. Cl. 

### 62, 66 (2013); Tasby

### v. United States, 

### 91 Fed. 

### C1.344,346 (2010) ("[T]he Eighth 

### Amendment prohibitions 

### of excessive 

### bail 

### or fines, 

### as well 

### as cruel 

### and unusual punishment, are not money-mandating.") (citation omitted).

To the extent plaintiff is generally trying

### to allege aviolation

### of his civil rights, the United States Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to hear claims alleging deprivation of civil rights under color of 

### law. See Elkinsv. United States

,229 Ct. Cl. 607, 608 (1981) ("[Wle do not havejurisdiction over claims based upon alleged violations ofthe civil rights laws.") (citation omitted); see also Waqstaff v. United States, 105 Fed. Cl.99, 109 (2012);May

### v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl.

### 278,284 (2012),

### affd, 534 F.

### App'x 930 (Fed. Cir.

2013); Hanes

### v. United 

### States,44 Fed. Cl. 

### 441,449 (1999),

### affd,243 F.3d 

### 562 (Fed. Cir.), reh'q denied (2000); Sanders v. United States

,34 Fed. Cl. 75, 80 (1995), 

### affd, 104 F.3d 

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

### in banc suqqestion 

### declined (Fed. 

### Cir. 1996) (the general civil rights claims alleged are not based on any money-mandating provisions, and do not give rise to liability for the United States), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 831, reh'q denied, 522 U.S. 1036 (1997); Blassinqame v. United States, 33 Fed. Cl. 504, 505,

### affd, 73 F.3d 379 (Fed. Cir. 1995), reh'q denied (Fed. Cir.), cert. 

### denied,517 U.S. 1237 (1996)


### Moreover, regarding plaintiff's contention

### that "[t]he plaintiff 

### alleges other provisions ofthe Civil Rights Act 

### of 1964, 42 U.S.C. g 2000a, might also be relevant, this court does not have subject matterjurisdiction over actions arising under sections ofthe Civil 

### RightsActs, including 42 U.S.C. SS 1981

, 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988. See Pikutin 

### v. United 

### States,97 Fed.

### CL71,77 (2011) ("Plaintiff also 

### citesvarious provisions ofthe Civil RightsActs, including 51981
,51983, 91985, and 51986, as basesfor his claim. The court does not possess jurisdiction 

### to entertain clalms based on these statutes." (citing Marlin

### v. United States. 

### 63 Fed.

### Cl.475,476 ("[T]he 

### Courtdoes not havejurisdiction to consider civil rights claims brought pursuant to42 U.S.C. SS 1981

, 1983, or 1985 because jurisdiction over claims arising underthe Civil RightsAct resides exclusively inthe district 

### courts.'), appeal dismissed, 14O F.App'x 256 (Fed. Cir. 2005), and Anderson 

### v. United States. 22 Cl.Ct. 178, 179 n. 2 (1990) (noting that the United States Ctaims Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain claims under 

### g 1983, S 1985(3), and

### g 1986), 

### affd. 937 F.2d 

### 623 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision)), apoeal dismissed

, 425 F

.App'x 902 (Fed. Cn.2O11)); Hubbard 

### v. United 

### States,80 Fed. 

### Cl.282,283 (noting 

### thatthe Civil Rights Act encompasses 42 U.S.C. S 1988),

### affd, 315 F.App'x 307 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Schweitzer 

### v. United States, 

### 82 Fed. 

### Cl. 592,

### 595 (2008) ("Likewise, 

### this court 

### does 

### not have jurisdiction over 

### the plaintiffs'civil rights claims brought under

### 42 U.S.C. SS 1983, '198S
or 1986 (2000), because it iswell-settled thatjurisdiction over such claims liesexclusively in

### the district 

### courts." (citing Stamps

### v. United States. 

### 73 Fed. Cl. 603, 609-10 (2006) (citing Anderson 

### v. United States, 

### 22 Cl. Ct.

### at 179)); Salman

### v. United States, 

### 69 Fed. Cl. 36, 39 n.3 (2005) ("Plaintiff has also alleged unlawful prosecution on

### the part of the government, 

### but has cited 

### no money-mandating 

### source 

### of lawthat would afford him compensation 

### for this alleged behavior 

### of the government. Inasmuch 

### as plaintiffs allegation might refer to the civil rights violations proscribed by 42 U.S.C. S 1983 (2000), 

### this court has nojurisdiction over section 1983 claims." (citing Berdick 

### v. united States. 

### 222 Ct. Cl. 

### 94,612 F.2d 533, 

### 536 (1979); Marlin

### v. United States. 

### 63 Fed. Ct.

### at 476 (stating thatthis "[c]ourt does not have jurisdiction to consider civil rights claims brought pursuant

### to

### 42 U.S.C. SS 1981, 1983,

### or 1985 because jurisdiction over claims arising under the Civil RightsAct resides exclusively inthe district courts") (citations omitted)).
Likewise, 

### this court 

### does not have

### jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims under the Privacy 

### Act. The Privacy Act, at 5 U.S.C. g552a(gx1) (2012), provides "the district courts 

### ofthe United States 

### shall havejurisdiction" 

### over civil actions concerning 

### the relevant 

### statute.5 U.S.C. S552a(gx1); 

### seealso Rebish 

### v. United

### States,l2OFed. Cl. 184, 188 

### (2016) ("To 

### the extent 

### that Mr. Rebish intended 

### to allege 

### that 

### the Bureau committed violations of the Privacy Act,jurisdiction over such a claim would lie in district court, notthe Court of Federal Claims." (citing 5 U.S.C. S552a(gx1))); see also Madison v. United

States, 98 Fed. Cl. 393, 395 (201 1),Treece v. United States, 96 Fed. Cl.226,232 (2010); Stephanatos

### v. United States, 81 Fed.

### C|.440,44445 (2008); Parker 

### v. United States, 77 Fed. Cl.279,291-92 (2007), 

### afi'd,280 F.App'x 957 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

To

### the extent plaintiff cites

### the Privacy 

### Act because, 

### as he alleges, "the medical 

### records 

### of the plaintiff

### were given 

### to attorneys

### of 

### a defendant 

### without

### the plaintiffs consent,

### this court does not possess jurisdiction over claims

### that sound in tort. See 28 U.S.C. S 1491(a) ("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, 

### 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; Alves

### v. 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. Bancorp 

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

### en banc suqqestion 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;Aqee

### v. United

### States,72Fed. Cl.284,290 (2006); Zhenoxinq 

### v. United 

### States,71 Fed. 

### C!.732,739, affld,204 F.App'x 885 (Fed. Cir.), reh'q denied 

### (Fed. Cir. 2006). Therefore, 

### tothe extent 

### any

### of plaintiff's claims 

### sound intort, those claims must be dismissed.



### As noted above, "[t]he total amount of money 

### the plaintiff demands for an instant 

### preliminary injunction 

### is $200,000, 

### because irrefutable evidence 

### for violations

### of the privacy Act of 1976, 5 U.S.C. 552a exist," and "[t]he plaintiff endures duress and sets forth a demand forjudgment against 

### the United States 

### to have 

### a permanent injunction 

### to not be arrested, equivalentto diplomatic immunity. The plaintiff hopes 

### the injunction can be granted by 

### ex parte order as soon as possible." 

### The Federal Circuit has explainedthat the Court of Federal Claims "does not have general equityjurisdiction to grant injunctive 

### relief." Shemonskv v. United States, 215 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (upholding decision of the Court

### of Federal Claims thatthe court's jurisdiction 

### did not extend 

### to injunctive or declaratory relief);see also Bank of Guam 

### v. United States, 578 F.3d 1318, 1331 (Fed. Cir.) reh'q and reh'q en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 561 U.S. 1006 (2010); Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Choate v. United States, 60 F.3d 840 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (holding that "[t]heTucker Act does not provide a means by which the Court of Federal Claims may grant injunctive ordeclaratory relief where the suit 

### does not involve

### a pre-award protest or

### the application 

### of section 7428 

### ofthe Internal Revenue 

### Code"). As stated bythe Federal Circuit:



### The Court 

### of Federal Claims has never been granted general authority to issue declaratory judgments, and

### to hold that

### the Court

### of Federal Claims 

### may issue

### a declaratory

### judgment in this case, unrelated 

### to any money claim pending before it,would effectively override Congress'sdecision not

10

### to make

### the DeclaratoryJudgment 

### Act applicable 

### tothe Court 

### of Federal

Claims.

Nat'l Air Traffic Controllers Ass'n v. United States, 160 F.3d

### 714,716-17 (Fed. Cir.1998);


### see also United States 

### v. Tohono O'Odham Nation, 

### 563 U.S. 307 (2011) (The United States Court of Federal Claims "has no general power to provide equitable relief against 

### the Government 

### or itsofficers."). Moreover, 

### in an action brought under 

### 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 1491(a),this court can only provide declaratory or injunctive relief "as an incident of and collateral to" ajudgment for money 

### damages. 28 U.S.C. S 1492(a)(2); see also Tavlor v. United States, 113 Fed. Cl. 171,173 (2013) (holding that the

### TuckerAct does not provide independent jurisdiction over claimsfor injunctive relief in contractual dispute 

### cases). For example, in a case brought undertheTucker Act that did not involve a pre-award protest,
once 

### the Court 

### of Federal Claims determined 

### that itdid not have jurisdiction 

### to hear a 

### plaintiffs claimsfor money damages, 

### it necessarily followed that

### the court 

### did not have authority

### to hear

### that plaintiffs claims 

### for injunctive 

### relief. See Kanemoto

### v. Reno, 41 F.3d

### 641,645 (Fed. 

### Gir. 1994); see also

### Tavlorv. United States, 113 Fed. Ct.

### at 173. Accordingly, plaintiff's demands for declaratory relief are dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction.
Finally, plaintiff 

### did not pay

### thefiling 

### fee, nor did he

### file 

### a motion

### to proceed in forma 

### pauperis. Plaintiff may have realized 

### that a motion 

### to proceed in forma pauperis may not have been successful, as a 2016 decision in

### the District Court for 

### the District 

### of Montana concluded, "Caldwell has

### failed

### to provide sufficient financial information, his Complaint isfrivolous, andvenue is improper. The motions to proceed informa pauperis should therefore be denied andthis matter dismissed." Caldwell 

### v. United States, Case No. 15-132, Dkt. 11 (D. Mont. Jan. 26,2016).4 Before plaintiff may file suit again inthis

a Plaintiff refers tothis decision in hlscomplaint before this court indicating that:

The plaintiff has knowledge of 

### a notice being "dismissed", although itwas 

### typed .Notice 

### of Genocide" on page 

### 2 of document 11

### of case

### # 1:i5-cv00132-SPW-CSO 

### ofthe United States District Court

### for 

### the District of Montana. The plaintiff does not know howthere isjustice in dismissing the Notice of Genocide". The plaintiff has anAfrican-American relative that died 

### in

### the later 

### part

### of February 

### 2016 (breathing problems), 

### after Notice of Genocide 

### was not granted. 

### The plaintiff suffers 

### from breathing problems himself.

The 

### court notes

### that, in addition 

### tothe District 

### court of Montana case.

### five other case plaintiff 

### filed infederal court have been 

### dismissed. 

### see caldwell 

### v. Bonneville 

### cntv., Case 

### No.4:13-cv-00004 (D. ldaho 

### Oct. 

### 11,2013) (dismissing amended 

### complaintwith prejudice as frivolous 

### and for failure 

### to state 

### a claim); Caldwell

### v. post Co., 

### Case No. 4:12-cv-00621 (D. ldaho 

### Aug. 12,2019); Caldwell v. Sessions, Case ruo.a:12-cv-00635 

### (D. ldaho June 7, 2013); Caldwell

### v. Post Co., Case No. 4:12-cv-00596 

### (D. ldaho Feb. 14,2013); Caldwell v. ldaho, Case No.4:09-cv-00561 (D. tdaho June 3,2010), dismissed 

### (9th Cir. Sept. 8,2010), cert. 

### denied (U.S. 

### Oct. 11, 2011). Additionaily, ptaintiff has a

11court, plaintiff shall pay the filingfee for this case orany other case, orfile a proper motion



### to proceed informa pauperis.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, 

### plaintiffs complaint is 

### DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter JUDGMENT consistent with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.



# . f4^

# ,{/

- MARIAN 

### BLANK HORN



### Judge

pending suit inthe United States District Court for

### the Northern District of lllinois, filed on December 

### 18,2015, See Caldwell 

### v. United States, Case 

### No. 15-11444 (N.D. 

### lll. Dec. 18,2015),

12