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 * * * * * * * rr tr rl tr,. 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 a default judgment entered in their 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 Plus the 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 7 46, 7 48 (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 bear the 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 Tucker Act 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 in tort.

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); see Jan'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 is the 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 than the 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 of theft or fraud, 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).

In their 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