Itt tiり 

### |(硼

# 尭

■ iteb』 5tateダ 

# Court ot∫ eberal CIュ iIIIIダ

No.18‐ 

### 1552C (Filed:IVIarch 8,2019)

士 姜 ,姜 士 士 彙 彙 彙 彙 彙 来 彙 彙 姜 ■ ■ 姜 姜 業 士 彙 ま ま 贅 彙 士 

## DOROTHY CATO and CHRISTOPHER CATO, Plaintiffs,

V. 

## THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant. * rs* rs rr :t rr * * * * * * * rrtr rltr,. rr* rr rl * 彙 士 来 士 彙 彙 士 士 士 士 よ 黎 姜



### ORDER OF DISPIIISSAL WILLIAMS, Senior Judge. 

### This matter comes before 

### the Court on Defendant's motion 

### to dismiss. For the reasons stated 

### below, Defendant's 

### motion is granted. 

### Backgroundl 

### Plaintiffs 

### pro se 

### Dorothy and Christopher 

### Cato are residents 

## of the state

## of Texas. 

### Plaintiffs' handwritten complaint is

### difficult to understand, but 

### Plaintiffs appear 

### to allege that they have not been paid a$1,282,000 award 

### resulting from adefault

### judgment entered 

### intheir favor 

### in the 

### District Court 

### of Harris County, Texas on December 

### 5,2001. Compl. 

### 1,4-6. Plaintiffs request that this Court assist them in recovering 

### their default 

### judgment plus interest, stating that they 

### bring this complaint 

### "to the Federal 

### Court

### for Restitution

. . .,

### with Interest 

### of ITYo 

### Annually as Stated 

### in the 

### Original Default Judgment Plusthe 

### Policy 

### Limits." Id. at 3. 

### Discussion 

### Plaintiff has

### the burden 

## of establishing subject-matter 

### jurisdiction 

### in this 

## Court. See Reynolds 

### v.

### Army 

### &

### Air Force 

### Exch. Serv. 

### , 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. 

### Cir. I

### 988). The 

### Court must dismiss the action 

### if it finds subject-matter

### jurisdiction to be 

### lacking. Adair v. United States, 497

This background is derived 

### from 

### Plaintiffs' complaint.

7日

### L8 □

L凸 □ □ □ □ L LIL7ロ ヨ

電 LI邑

### F.3d 1244, 1251 

### (Fed. 

### Cir.2007). The Court assumes 

### all factual allegations as

### true, and

### will

construe the 

### complaint in a manner most favorable 

### to 

### Plaintiff when 

### ruling on a

### motion to dismiss pursuant

### to Rule 12(b)(1). Pennington Seed. 

### Inc.v. Produce Exch. 

### No. 299, 457 

### F.3d 1334, 1338 (Fed. 

### Cir.2006). The

### filings of pro se 

### litigants are held 

### to "'less stringent standards than 

### formal pleadings 

### drafted 

### by 

### lawyers."' Naskar

### v. United States, 

### 82 Fed.

### Cl.3I9,320 (2008) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 

### U.S. 

### 5I9,520 (1972)). However, 

### plq se 

### plaintiffs still bearthe burden 

### of establishing 

### the Court's

### jurisdiction and must 

### do so 

### by a preponderance 

### of the 

### evidence. See 

### Reynolds, 846 F.2d at 748; 

### Tindle v. United States, 56 Fed. 

### Cl.337,341 (2003). The

### TuckerAct provides that 

### this Court: 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 contract 

### with the 

### United States, or 

### for liquidated or 

### unliquidated damages 

### in cases 

### not sounding 

### intort. 28

### u.S.c. $ 1ae1(a)(1) (2012). The Tucker 

### Act is not money-mandating, but rather is

### ajurisdictional statute. 

### United States 

### v. Testan, 

### 424 U.S. 392, 398 

### (1976).To establish 

### jurisdiction, a 

### plaintiff must seek money damages under a source 

### of substantive 

### law. "[T]he claimant must demonstrate that the source 

## of substantive law he relies upon ocan

### fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Govemment 

### for the damages 

### sustained."' United States 

### v. 

### Mitchell, 463 U.S. 

### 206,216-17 (1983) 

### (quoting Testan, 424 

### U.S. at

### 400); seeJan's 

### Helicopter Serv., 

### Inc.

### v. Fed.

### Aviation Admin., 525 

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

### Cir. 2008) 

### ("[A] plaintiff must 

### identifu a separate source 

### of substantive 

### law that creates the 

### right to money damages." 

### (internal citation and quotation marks 

### omitted)). 

### Plaintiffs' default

### judgment was granted 

### by a state 

### court against a 

### private 

### company. The 

### only proper defendant 

### in this Court isthe 

### United States. 

### United States 

### v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 

### (1941); Berdick v. United States, 612F 

### .2d 533, 536 

### (Ct. 

### Cl. 1979). Because 

### Plaintiffs allege 

### claims against parties other thanthe 

### United States,

### this Court lacks

### jurisdiction to entertain those 

### claims. Nor does 

### this Court have

### jurisdiction to review decisions rendered 

### by state 

### courts. See 

### D.C. Court 

### of Appeals 

### v. Feldman, 460 

### U.S.

### 462,482 (1983); Landers 

### v. United States, 39 Fed. 

### Cl.

### 297,30I (1997). To the extent 

### that 

### Plaintiffs allege 

### claims 

### oftheft orfraud,

### this Court may 

### not entertain such 

### claims as

### this Court lacks

### jurisdiction over claims sounding 

### in

## tort. fuck's Mushroom Serv.. Inc. 

### v. United States, 

### 521F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2008). 

### Intheir response

### to Defendant's 

### motion to dismiss, 

### Plaintiffs appear

### to invoke 28 

### U.S.C. $ 

### 1292, and

### to allege 

### violations of the 

### First and Fourteenth Amendments 

### to the Constitution, but these authorities 

### do 

### not grant

### jurisdiction 

### to this 

## Court. Section 1292 

## of Title 28, entitled Interlocutory Decision, governs appeals 

### of interlocutory orders and does 

### not grant

### jurisdiction to 

### this 

### Qourt. 28 

### U.S.C. S 1292 

### (2012). This Court does 

### not hqve

### jurisdiction over 

### Plaintiffs' First and Fourteenth 

### Amendment claims, as these 

### provisions are 

### not money-mandating. LeBlanc v. 

### United States, 50 

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

### Cir. 1995); Hernandez 

### v. United States, 93 Fed.

### Cl. 193, 

### le8 (2010).

### Conclusion Defendant's 

### motion to dismiss is

### GRANTED. The 

### Clerk is directed to dismiss this action.



## LLEN COSTER WILLIAMIS