# 0RE$[[$At lln tbe 

# @nfte! 

# $tates @ourtof

# :f elBrsl @lsfms No. 15-14 C Filed: August 6, 2015 TO BE 

### PUBLISHED * * * *!,t * *,1. * * + :t* *,* *,*,t *'1. :**,1'*,t * * )** * * * * * * **

* * * :i* * * * * * * :1. :t* * * rr* * * * * * * {'* * * * +* * * * *,r* 

### Victor Fourstar, pro se. Melissa 

### Baker, United States Department of Justice, 

### Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for the Govemment. 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION AND 

### FINAL ORDER 

# I. RELEVANTFACTUALBACKGROUND.' On October 30. 2002,

### Victor Fourstar was convicted 

### of violating 18 U.S.C. 

### $$ I I53(a)'z and224l3 by the United states Districr 

### court for the District of Montana. 

### compl. !f I


### . on February
IThe facts discussed herein were derived from the January 6, 2015 Complaint 

### ("Compl'") andthe March 9, 2015Amended Complaint 

### ("Am. Compl.").

2Section I 153(a) provides: 

### Any Indianwho commits against the person or property

### of another Indian or other person any

### of the

### following offenses,



### . . . shall be subject 

### to the same 

### law and penalties as

### all other persons 

### committing any 

### of the above offenses, 

### within the exclusive

### jurisdiction of the United States. 

### 18U.S.c.$lls3(a).

3Section 2241 provides: Whoever, in the special maritime and 

### tenitorialjurisdiction of the United States or 

### in a Federal prison, 

### or 

### in any prison, 

### institution,

### orfacility in which persons are 

# FILED

AUG

## - 6 2015 U.S. COURT OF FEDERALCLAIMS 

### VICTOR FOURSTAR, 

### Plainliff,pro se,

THE LTNITED STATES, Def'endant. Jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. $ 1491; 

### MotionTo Dismiss, RCFC 12(bX1); 

### Pro Se, "Three Strikes" Rule, 28 U.S.C. $ 191s.

### 27,2003, 

### Mr. Fourstar was sentenced 

### to 188 

### months' imprisonment and

### five years' supervised

release. Compl. 

### tl

## L On January 30, 2004, the United States Court ofAppeals for the Ninth 

### Circuit affirmed 

### Mr. Fourstar's 

### conviction. See United States v. 

### Fourstar,8T F.

### App'x 62 (9th 

### Cir.2004). Thereafter, 

### Mr. Fourstar 

### filed at least

### six petitions 

### for a

### writ of habeas corpus 

### in various venues. See 

### Fourstar v. 

### Martinez,541 F.

### App'x 494 (5th 

### Cir. 2013) 

### (affirming denial 

### of

### writ); Fourstar v. Copenhaver,l4-CV- 1456 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2014); Fourstar v. 

### llalton,l3-CY -1122 

### (S.D.

# Ill. Oct. 

## 31, 2013); 

### Fourstar

## v. Farley, l2-CV-124 

### (E.D. 

## Ky. Oct. 

### 30, 2012); Fourstar v. 

### Kelly,l2-CY -3671 Of .D. Ga. Oct. 19,2012); Fourstar v. United Stotes,05-Cv-61 

### (D Mont. June

### 7,2005); Fourstar v. 

### Outlnv,07 -CY -1 1(E.D. Tex. Jan. 8,2001). 

### Mr. Fourstar also unsuccessfully petitioned 

### for certificates

### of innocence 

### from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth 

### Circuit, Seventh Circuit, and 

### Ninth 

### Circuit. Compl' at p. 3.0 

### As 

### of February 17

## , 2015, 

### Mr. Fourstar has continued 

### to assert 

### his innocence 

### in other venues.

### Am. Compl. at p. 2. 

# II, RELEVANTPROCEDURALHISTORY, On January

### 6,2015, Mr. Fourstar 

### ("Plaintiff') filed aComplaint 

### ("Compl.") in the 

### Ilnited States 

### Court

## of Federal 

### Claims, seeking $675,000 

## for "wrongful arrest 

### and wron-gful 

### imprisonment." That same day, 

### Plaintiff also

### fit.d u 

### MotionTo Proceed 1n Forma Pauperis.5 On February 10, 2015, the Govemment filed aMotion To Dismiss 

### ("Gov't 2l10/15 

### MoI'")' pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) 

### ofthe Rules 

### ofthe United States Court of FederalClaims 

### ("RCFC"). On February 26,2015, 

### Plaintiff filed a 

### Motion ToAmend Pleadings that the court granted on March 9,2015. On March 9,2015, 

### Plaintiff filed anAmended Complaint 

### ("Am. Compl.").

held in custody by direction 

### ofor pursuantto acontract or agreement 

### with the head 

### of any Federal department or agency, 

### knowingly causesanother personto engage in a sexual

## act- (l) by using force against that other person; or 

### (2) 

### by threatening 

### or placing that other person 

### in fear 

### that any person

## will be subjected to death, serious 

### bodily injury, or kidnapping; or attempts to do so, shall befined under this title, imprisoned for any term 

### ofyears or 

### life, or both. 

### l8 U.S.C. $

### 224i(a).

aSome portions 

### ofthe January 6, 2015 have paragraph numbers; others do

### not. For those portions not

### within an enumerated paragraph, the court refersto the page number.

5

### Plaintifl sJanuary 6, 201 5 

### Motion To Proceed

### /n Forma Pauperis is granted'

## III. On March 

### 23,2015, the Govemment 

### filed a 

### Motion To Dismiss 

### ("Gov't 3/23115 

### Mot."),

pursuantto RCFC 

### l2(b)(1). 

### On 

### May 1,2015, Plaintiff 

### filed 

### a Motion For Preliminary 

### Injunction, 

### Motion For Temporary Restraining Order,

### And Motion ForAppointment 

### Of United States

### Attomey. ("P1. 

### Mot.") On 

### May 7,2015, the Govemment

### filed a Response 

### ("Gov't 517115 

### Resp."). On June 23, 2015, 

### Plaintiff filed a Reply ("P1. Reply"). On May 7,2015, 

### Plaintiff filed a

### Motion To Strike The Govemment's 

### Motion To Dismiss. On 

### May 11,2015, the Government 

### filed a Response 

### ("Gov't 5/l l/15 Resp."). On June 16.2015, 

### Plaintiff filed a

### Motion For Leave To File Second Amended Complaint, 

### Motion To Certifu Class,

### And Motion For 

### Injunction, Intervention, 

### And Restraining 

### Order. On June 19, 2015, the Govemmentfiled a Response 

### ("Gov't 6/19/i5 Resp."). 

### On

### July 28, 2015, 

### Plaintiff 

### filed a Motion For Leave

### To File Second 

### Motion For Preliminary 

### InjunctionAnd Motion For Restraining 

### Order. That same day, 

### Plaintiff also

### filed a 

### Motion For LeaveTo FileThird Motion To Amend 

### complaint and a

### Motion To Appoint counsel. 

### DISCUSSION, 

# A. Jurisdiction. The United States 

### Court 

### of Federal 

### Claims has

### jurisdiction under the 

### Tucker 

### Act, 28 U.S.C. $ 1491 ,

### "to renderjudgment upon any claim against the United Statesfounded 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. 

### $ l491(a)(1). The Tucker 

### Act, however, 

### is "a 

### jurisdictional statute; 

### it does not create any substantive right enforceable against the United States 1o.111on"y damages

. . .

## . [T]he 

### Act merely confers 

### jurisdiction upon [the United States Court 

### of Federal 

### Claimsl whenever the substantive 

### right 

### exists." United Slqtes

### v. Teslan,424 

### U.S.392, 398 

### (l 976). To pursue a substantive right under theTucker 

### Act, a

### plaintiff must 

### identify and plead an independent contractual relationship, Constitutional 

### provision, federal statute, and/or executive ageniy regulation that provides asubstantive right to money damages. See Todd v. United Stales, 386 F.3d 1091, 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 

### ("[J]urisdiction under theTucker Act requires the litigant to identify asubstantive right for money damages against the United States separatefrom the Tucker 

### Act[.]"); see also Fisher 

### v. United States, 402 F

### .3d 116'7

### , 1172 (Fed' 

### Cir. 2005) (en banc) 

### ("The 

### TuckerAct...doesnotcreateasubstantivecauseofaction;...aplaintiffmustidentifyaseparate source

### of substantive 

### lawthat creates the 

### right 

### to money damages.



### . 

### .

## . [T]hat source must be 

### .money-mandating."'). Specifically, a 

### plaintiff must demonstrate thatthe source

### of substantive 

### law that 

### he relies upon 

### "can 

### fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation 

### by the Federal 

### Government[.]" Testan, 424 U.S. 

### at

### 400. And, the 

### plaintiff bearsthe burden 

### of establishing 

### jurisdiction by a preponderance 

### ofthe evidence. See Reynolds v.Army 

### &

### Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746,748 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1988) 

### ("[O]ncethe 

### [trial] court's subject matter 

### jurisdiction [is] putMoreover, 

### "[t]he United States Court 

### of Federal Claims shall have

### jurisdiction to render

judgment upon any claim for damages by any person unjustly convicted 

### ofan offense against the United States and 

### imprisoned." 28 U.S.C. $ 1495. 

# B. Standard 

### Of Review 

### For Pro Se 

### Litigants. Pro se 

### plaintiffs' pleadings are 

### held

### to a less stringent standard than those

### of litigants represented 

### by counsel. See Haines v. 

### Kerner,404 U.S. 519, 520 

### (i972) (holding thal

### pro se 

### complaints, "however 

### inartfully pleaded," are 

### held

### to "less stringent standards 

### than formal pleadings drafted 

### by 

### lawyers"). This court 

### traditionally examines the record 

### "to see

### if [apro se] 

### plaintiff has a cause

### of action somewhere 

### displayed." Ruderer

### v. United States'

### 412F.2d 1285' 1292 (Ct. 

### Cl. 1969). Nevertheless, 

### while the court may excuse ambiguities 

### in a

### pro se

### plaintiffs complaint, the court "does not excuse [a

### complaint's] 

### failures." Henke

### v. United States, 60 F.3d 795,799 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1995). 

# C. Standards 

### For 

### Motion To Dismiss 

### Pursuant 

### RCFC 

### 12(bxl)' A challenge to the United States Court 

### of Federal

### Claims' "general power to adjudicate in 

### specific areas

## of substantive 

### law

# . . is properly raised 

### by 

### a [Rule] 

### l2(b)(l) motion[.]" Palmer 

### v. tJnited 

### States,l68 F.3d 1310, 1313 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1999); see aiso 

### RCFC 12(b)(1) 

### ("Every defense to aclaim for 

### relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading

. . .

## . But a 

### party may assertthe 

### following defenses 

### by motion: 

### (1) lack of

### jurisdiction over 

### the subiect 

### matter[.]"). When considering whether to dismiss anaction for lack of subject matter

### judsdiction, the court is "obligated to assume 

### all factual allegations 

### ofthe complaint to betrue and to draw 

### all reasonable inferences in 

### plaintiff s

### favor." Henke,60F'3dat79'7. 

# D. The 

### Court's Resolution 

### Of The 

### Government's 

### March 23' 2015 

### Motion To Dismiss. 

# 7. Pro SeConsiderations. The court 

### is cognizant

### of its obligation 

### to liberally construe 

### pro se 

### plaintiffs' pleadings. See Estelle v.

### Gamble,429IJ.S.97,106 (197 6) (holding that the "pro sedocument isto be

### liberally construed"). B-$,

### pro se 

### plaintiffs must 

### still "complywith the applicable rules of procedural and substantive lavt

# |' Walshv. United Slates,3 Cl. Ct. 539, 541 (1983). Nevertheless, the court is not at liberty to excuse acomplaint's 

### failures. See 

### Henke,60F.3dat799' Here, the Government argues thatthe 

### court should 

### not consider the facts alleged 

### in the January 6,2015 

### Complaint. Gov't3123115 Mot. at

### 4-5. But, because 

### Plaintiff ispro se,o the court

6 PlaintifT requests appointment 

### of counsel.Am. Compl. at p. 2 

### ("[Plaintiffl requests the appointment ofcounsel in 

### light of complexity ofissues and likeliness ofsuccess and in light 

### ofhis iniUitity to accessthe rules 

### of this 

### court."). But, "the right to counsel 

### [in 

### civil proceedings] is 

### highly circumscribed, 

### and has been authorized

## in exceedingly restricted circumstances[.]" pitst v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d 12'19,1283 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2012). To the extent that Plaintiffseeks counsel, pursuantto 28 U. S.C. $ 1915(e), that statute provides that 

### "[t]he court may request an attomey to 

### i"p."."nt any person unable 

### to afford 

### counsel." 28 U.S.C. 

### g 

### l9l5(e)(l) (emphasis 

### added). To

### will consider the factual allegations 

### from the March 

### 9,2015 Amended Complaint, as

### well as the

January 6, 201 5 Complaint.



# 2. The 

### Merits. The court has

### jurisdiction "to renderjudgment upon any claim for damages by any person unjustly convicted 

### of an offense against the 

### United States and 

### imprisoned." 28 U.S.C. S 1495. But, Section 2513(a) further imposes several limitations: 

### Any person suing under section 1495 of this 

### title must allege and prove that: ( 1

### ) His conviction has been reversed or set aside onthe ground that he is not 

### guilty 

### ofthe offense 

### of which hewas convicted, or on new

### trial or rehearing he was fbund not

### guilty ofsuch offense, asappearsfrom the record or ceftificate 

### ofthe court setting asideor reversing suoh conviction, or that he has been pardoned uponthe stated ground of innocence and unjust conviction and 

### (2) He did not commit any

### ofthe acts charged or his acts, deeds, or omissions 

### with such charge constituted 

### no oflense against 

### the United States, 

### or any State, 

### Tenitory or the 

### District of Columbia, and hedid not by misconduct or neglect cause or bring about his own prosecution. 28 U.S.C. $2513(a). 

### In this case, neither 

### the January 

### 6,2015 Complaint nor the March 

### 9,2015 Amended Complaint "allege[s] or 

### prove[s]" any

### ofthe statutory requirements, i.e., that 

### Plaintiff received a certificate 

### of innocence or was "pardoned on upon the stated ground 

### of innocence" andthat 

### "[h]e did not commit any

### of the acts

### charged." 28 

### U.S.C. $

### 2513(a). Although the January 6, 2015 Complaint and 

### March 9, 2015 Amended Complaint allege that 

### Plaintiff is continuing 

### to assert innocence in different venues, neither pleading alleges factsthat would satisry Section 2513. 

# IV. CONCLUSION. For the reasons discussed herein, the Government's March 23, 2015 

### Motion To Dismiss is 

### granted. The Clerk of Court isdirected to dismiss 

### Plaintiff sMarch 9,2015 Amended Complaint. As such, all remaining pending motions in this case are denied as moot.

warrant appointment 

### of counsel 

### in civil cases, however, 

### Plaintiff must demonstrate "extreme hardship" and ,'exrraordinary circumstances." 

### Ilashington v. 

### united states,93 Fed.

### c1.706,709 (2010). Althoughthe court recognizes 

### its duty 

### to ensure that 

### p/o se 

### plaintiffs are treated 

### fairly, this case does not meet that standard. See

## ld (determining that a complaint against the United States

### Army for $900,000 

### in damages did not meetthe "extraordinary circumstances" standard). As such. 

### Plaintiff s request for appointment 

### of counsel is denied.Moreover, because 

### Plaintiff has 

### filed at least

### four other lawsuits that were dismissed as

frivolous,T 

### Plaintiff is prohibited from 

### filing anyclaim inthe United States Court of Federal Claims under Section 1915. See

### 28U.S.C. $ 1915(g) 

### ("ln no event shall a prisoner bring

### acivil action or appeal ajudgment 

### in a

### civil action 

### or proceeding under 

### this section 

### if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, 

### while incarcerated or detained in any 

### facility, brought an action or appeal 

### in a court 

### of the 

### United Statesthat was dismissed onthe grounds that 

### it isfrivolous, malicious, or 

### fails 

### to state a 

### claim upon 

### which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner 

### is under imminent danger

### ofserious physical 

### injury."); see also 

### Fourstar v. Garden 

### City Grp., 

### No. 15-mc-76,2015 

### WL 301217 ,at * 1 

### (D.D.C. Ian,22,2015) ("The 

### plaintiff has accumulated at least three strikes.").


### IT IS SO 

### ORDERED.

1See Fourstar v.

### Costell,No.14-cv-957,2014 WL 7005105, at

## *l (S.D. 

### Ill. Sept' 29,2014) ("The Court determined that 

### Plaintiffhad, in fact, on at least

### thee prior occasions brought a

### civil rights case that was dismissed onthe grounds that 

### it was

### frivolous, malicious, orfailed to state a 

### claim."); Fourstar v. 

### Murlak,No. CV 07 -5892,2010 WL 2163980, at*4 (C.D' Cal'

### Apr' 26' 2010) (frivolousness recommendation 

### of magistrate jud ge); 

### Fourstar v. 

### Outlaw,283 F.

### App'x 209 (5th 

### Cir. 2008) (dismissing appeal as

### frivolous); Fourstar v.

### Zemyan,08-CV-50 (D. Mont. Aug. 26' 2008) (adopting frivolousness recommendation of magistrate judge). 

### sus