# ORI$E[{At

llntW @nitr! 

# $tutts @ourt of

# frlerul @tuims 

# F'LED No. l4-76C (Filed: 

### August

# 11,2014) AUG

# I 

# I 2014
* {.* {. +* * * 't +,r 'r 't*,r * * * * *:r. * * *,r I r{r r r r r :rr 'r*

## * U.S. COURTOF FEDERALCI..AIM9 

### JUDITH

# SCRASE, {. 

# * Motion to Dismiss; 

### Motion for Appointment 

# Plaintiff, * ofCounsel; Application to Proceed In



# * Forma Pauperis; Pro Se 

### Plaintiff; Fifth 

# v. * Amendment 

### Taking; Fourteenth 

# * Amendment; Statute 

### of Limitations; Res 

### THE I-INITED

# STATES, * Judicata; Issue Preclusion



# Det'endant. ; r* **)r

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

### *******:i:** ** * *,t **,r* ** 

### *
Judith Scrase, Las Vegas, 

### NV, p1q se.
Sharon 

### A. Snvder, 

### United States Department 

### of Justice, Washington, 

### DC, for defendant. 

### OPINION AND ORDER SWEENEY, Judge 

### PlaintiffJudith Scrase, acting 

### plq seand seeking 

### to proceed 

### in forma oauoeris, alleges thatthe 

### United States, through the 

### National Park Service, 

### took her property 

### without

### just compensation 

### inviolation of the 

### Fifth Amendment to the 

### United States 

### Constitution. Defendant moves to dismiss 

### plaintiff s

### complaint pursuant

### to Rules 12(bX1) and 

### l2(b)(6) ofthe Rules 

## of the 

### United States Court 

### of Federal

### Claims

### C'RCFC'). For the reasons set

### forth below, the 

### court grants defendant's 

### motion and dismisses 

### plaintiff s

### complaint

### for lack 

### ofjurisdiction. 

## I. BACKGROUND
The 

### National Park Service has authorized a concessionaire 

### to operate a long-term 

### trailer village in the Lake Mead 

### National Recreation 

### Area.r Plaintiff leased a site atthis 

### trailer 

### village-now called the Lake Mead 

### R.V. 

### Village-on 

### April 30,

### 2001. 

### Plaintiff s lease was on a 

### month-to-month basis, and subjectto

### termination by either party 

### withthirty days 

### notice. 

### A certificate of

### title to a

### trailer was issued 

### to

### plaintiffon Augtst24,2001; it is unclear whether this 

### trailer was already present onthe leased site or was subsequently moved 

### there. The lease provided that 

### plaintiff was permitted 

### to occupy the 

### trailer onthe leased site

### for 

### only 180 days 

## I The court derives thefacts in 

### this section

### from 

### plaintiffs complaint and the 

### exhibits attached 

### to the 

### complaint.eachcalendaryear and that 

### plaintiffcould not sell the 

### trailer, 

### with the 

### trailer to remain on site,



### without the permission 

### of the concessionaire.


### In March 2006, 

### plaintiff contemplated selling the 

### trailer to her 

### son. Shetherefore obtained an appraisal,

### which valued the 

### trailer at 

### 524,448. However, her son decided that he

### did not want to purchase the 

### trailer, which led to 

### plaintiff sdecision 

### to sell the 

### trailer to a

### third party.
Before she 

### could do so,

### plaintiff was 

### provided notice, on

### August 6,2006, that her month

### to-month tenancy was being terminated bythe concessionaire 

### effective September 30,

### 2006. The concessionaire subsequently 

### initiated eviction proceedings, and after aheadng on January 16, 2007, a Nevada court granted asummary 

### eviction. The court stayedthe 

### eviction 

### until February
7,2007 ,to 

### allow 

### plaintiff to remove her

### trailer from the leased 

### site. Plaintiff did not move the 

### trailer, andthe concessionaire placed a 

### landlord's lien on

## it. The 

### lien wassatisfied on September 7, 2007 ,when the concessionaire purchased the 

### trailer at

### auction. Title to the

### trailer was 

### officially transferred 

### to the concessionaire on December 17 ,2007 

## . The 

### trailer was subsequently dismantled and moved 

### to another part 

### ofthe trailer 

### village-what 

### plaintiff refers 

### to as the 

### graveyard-on September 

### 26,2008. Plaintiff was never granted permission 

### to sell her 

### trailer on site 

### to a

### third party. 

### Plaintiff has

### filed several lawsuits challenging the 

### termination 

### ofher lease, the subsequent 

### eviction, andthe

### disposition 

### ofher trailer,2 

### including an earlier 

### lawsuit in the 

### United States Court 

### of Federal

### Claims 

### ("Court of Federal 

### Claims").3 Inthis latter 

### lawsuit, 

### plaintiff alleged that she was restricted 

### from selling her

### trailer on site, 

### resulting in a 

### FifthAmendment 

### taking. After reviewing the 

### parties' briefs, the court 

### in that case dismissed 

### plaintiffs complaint 

### lor failure to state a

### claim upon

### which 

### it could grant reliefbecause 

### plaintiff did not establish that she had a compensable 

### right to sell her 

### trailer on

### site. Final 

### judgment issued.
The claims asserted by

### plaintiff in 

### this lawsuit echo those 

### in her earlier 

### lawsuit in 

### this 

### court. Specifically, in her January 27

### ,2014 complaint, 

### plaintiff alleges that defendant interfered 

### with her rights 

### to occupy her 

### trailer on the leased site

### for 180 days per year and

### to sell her

### trailer on

### site. She 

### further contends that by 

### allowing the 

### termination of her lease,

### eviction, and 

### disposition 

### ofher trailer, defendant 

### took her properry 

### without

### just compensation 

### inviolation 

### of the 

### Fifth Amendment and 

### violated her rights 

### to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth 

### Amendment. She seeks $75,000 

### in damages, attorney's fees and costs, and any other compensation deemed 

### just and 

### proper. Along 

### with her 

### complaint, 

### plaintifffiled an 

### application to proceed 

### in forma 

### pauperis. She subsequently 

### filed a 

### motion for the appointment 

### of counsel on her behalf.



### 2 Some 

### of these lawsuits resulted 

### in unpublished 

### decisions. See.e.g., Scrase v. Forever Resorts, 

### No. 2:12-cv-00983-KJD-PAL, 2013 

### WL 3198339 (D. 

### Nev. June

### 21,2013); Scrase v. 

### Dickinson, 

### No.2:09-cv-02398-RLH-GWF,20l 

## I WL 3714632 (D. 

### Nev.

### Attg.24,20ll). 3 See Scrase 

### v. United States, 

### No. l2-056C,

### 2Ol2WL 1645335 (Fed. 

### Cl. May 10,2012). -')-Defendant moves 

### to dismiss 

### plaintiff s

### complaint on

### two grounds. First, under RCFC



### l2(bXl), defendant contends thatthe court lacks

### jurisdiction to entertain 

### plaintiff sclaims because her 

### complaint was

### untimely. Second, under 

### RCFC 12(bX6), defendant eontends that 

### plaintiff sclaims are baned 

### urder the doctrine 

### of res

### judicata. The parties have

### fully briefed defendant's 

### motion-plaintiff filed a response, defendant

### filed a

### reply, and 

### plaintiff, with the 

### court's permission, 

### filed a "second 

### response." Finding oral argument unnecessary, the court is prepared to rule. 

# II. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR

### APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
At the close 

### of briefing on defendant's 

### motion to dismiss, 

### plaintiff filed a 

### motion requesting thatthe court appoint counsel on her 

### behalf. The Court 

### of Federal Claims "has the 

### ability to cause the appointment 

### ofcounsel in 

### civil cases" pursuant

### to 28 

### U.S.C. $ 

### 1915(e)(l). Washington v. 

### United States, 93 Fed. 

### Cl.706,708 (2010). "However, that power should 

### only be exercised 

### in extreme circumstances," such as 

### "when quasi-criminal penalties or severe

### civil remedies are at stake

. . .

## ." Id. Such extreme circumstances are not present in this case. Therefore. the court must denv 

### olainti{fs motion.



# III. DEFENDANT'S 

### MOTIONTO DISMISS



## A, Standard of Review
In 

### ruling on a

### motion to dismiss 

### filed pursuant

### to RCFC 12(b), the court assumes that the allegations 

### in the 

### complaint aretrue and construes those allegations 

### in the 

### plaintiffs favor. Henke v. 

### United States, 60 F.3d 

### 795,797 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1995). 

### With respect 

### to RCFC 12(b)(1), the 

### plaintiffbears the burden 

### ofproving, by a preponderance 

### ofthe evidence, that the court possesses subject matter

### jurisdiction. McNutt v. Gen. 

### Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 

### U.S. 178, 189 (1936); Reynolds v.

### Army 

### &Air Force 

### Exch. 

### Serv.,846F.2d746,748 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1988). Although complaints

### filed by 

### plaintiffs proceeding p1q se are held to"less stringent standards than 

### formal pleadings drafted by 

### lawyers," Haines

### v. Kemer, 404 

### U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), a p1q se

### plaintiff is not excused 

### from meeting basic

### jurisdictional requirements, 

### Henke,60 F.3d at

### 799. 

### Ifthe court finds that 

### it lacks subject matter

### jurisdiction over a

### claim, RCFC 

### l2(hX3) requires the 

### court to dismiss that 

### claim.


### A claim that survives 

### ajurisdictional challenge remains subject

### to dismissal under RCFC 

### l2(b)(6) 

### if it does not 

### provide a basis 

### for the court 

### to grant 

### relief. Lindsa}, v. 

### United States, 295 

### F.3d 1252, 1257 (Fed. 

### Cir.2002) 

### ("A motion to dismiss

. . .

### for failure to state a

### claim upon 

### which 

### reliefcan be granted is appropriate when the facts asserted bythe claimant do not 

### entitle him to a legal 

### remedy."). "[O]nce a

### claim has been stated adequately, 

### it may be supported by showing any set 

### of facts consistent

### with the allegations in the

### complaint." Bell 

### Atl. Corp. v. 

### Twombly, 550 

### U.S. 544,563 

### (2007). Indeed, 

### "[t]he issue is not whether a

### plaintiff

### will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled 

### to offer evidence 

### to support the 

### claims."

-3-Scheuer v. 

### Rhodes,4l6 U.S. 

### 232,236 (1974), ovemrled on other grounds by 

### Harlow v.

Fitzgerald, 457 

### U.S. 800, 814-19 (1982). 

## B. Subject 

### Matter Jurisdiction
Whether the court has

### jurisdiction to decide the merits 

### of a case is athreshold 

### matter. See Steel Co.

### v. Citizens 

### for a Better Env'1, 523 

### U.S. 83,94-95 

### (1998). "Without 

### jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at

### all in any cause. 

### Jurisdiction is power 

### to declare the 

### law, andwhen 

### it
ceasesto exist, the

### only function remaining 

### to the court isthat 

### of announcing thefact and dismissing the 

### cause." Ex narte 

### McCardle, 74 U.S. (7

### Wall.) 506, 514 

### (1868). The parties or the 

### court sua sponte may challenge the existence 

### of subject matter

### jurisdiction at any

### time. Arbaugh 

### v. Y 

### & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006).
The

### ability 

### ofthe Court 

### ofFederal Claims to entertain suits against the 

### United States is 

### limited. "The United States, assovereign, is immune 

### from suit save as 

### it consents 

### to besued." 

### United States 

### v. Sherwood,3l2 U.S. 584, 586 

### (1941). The 

### waiver of immunity "cannot be 

### implied but must be 

### unequivocally expressed." United States 

### v. 

### King,395 U.S. 

### 1,4 (1969). Further, 

### "[w]hen waiver legislation contains a statute 

### of limitations, the 

### limitations provision constitutes a

### condition on the

### waiver of sovereign 

### immunity." Block v. 

### North Dakota ex 

### rel. Bd. 

### ofUniv. & Sch. 

### Lands,461 

### U.S.273,287 (1983).
The

### TuckerAct, the 

### principal statute goveming the

### jurisdiction of this court, waives sovereign 

### immunity for claims against the 

### United States, 

### not sounding in 

### tort, that arefounded upon the 

### United States 

### Constitution, afederal statute or regulation, or an express or 

### implied contract 

### with the 

### United States. 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1491(a)(l) 

### (2012). In addition, any 

### claim againsr the 

### United States

### filed in the Court 

### of Federal Claims must be

### "filed within six years after such 

### claim 

### first accrues." Id. $ 2501;see also John R. Sand

### & Gravel Co.v. 

### United States, 552 U.S. 130, 133-35 (2008) 

### (providing thatthe 

### limitations period set

### forth in 28 

### U.S.C. g 2501 is an 

### "absolute" 

### limit on the 

### ability ofthe Court 

### of Federal Claims 

### to reach the merits 

### of a

### claim). 

### C. The

### Court Lacks 

### Jurisdiction to 

### Entertain Claims 

### Under the 

### Fourteenth Amendment Although 

### plaintiff s

### primary claim arises under the 

### Fifth Amendment, 

### plaintiff also alleges that defendant

### violated her due process and equal 

### protection rights underthe Fourteenth 

### Amendment. However, the court lacks

### jurisdiction to entertain such claims because the Fourteenth Amendment is 

### not a money-mandating 

### constitutional 

### provision. See 

### LeBlanc v. 

### United States, 50 

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

### Cir. 1995) 

### ("[T]he Due Process Clauses 

### ofthe Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments [and] the Equal Protection Clause 

### ofthe Fourteenth Amendment

. . . [are 

### not] a

### sufficient basis

### forjurisdiction because they do 

### not mandate payment 

### ofmoney bythe 

### govemment."). Thus, these claims must be dismissed.

-4-

### D. Plaintiff s

### Complaint Is 

### Untimely

The court possesses 

### jurisdiction to entertain 

### Fifth Amendment takings claims, but may exercise that

### jurisdiction only 

### iflhe claims are

### filed 

### within six years 

### of their accrual. 

### "A claim 

### first accrues

### within the meaning 

### ofthe statute 

### of limitations when all the events have occuned 

### which 

### fix the 

### liability ofthe Govemment and entitle the claimant 

### to institute an

### action." Brown Park Estates-Fairfield Dev. Co.v. 

### United States,127 

### F.3d1449,1455 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1997) 

### (intemal quotation marks 

### omitted). 

### "A claimant under the 

### Fifth Amendment must show that the 

### United States, by some specific action, 

### took aprivate property interest

### for a 

### public use 

### without

### just compensation. Therefore, a

### claim under the 

### Fifth Amendment accrues when that

### taking action 

### occurs." Alliance of Descendants 

### of Tex. Land Grantsv. 

### United States,37 

### F.3d 1478,

### l48l (Fed. 

### Cir. 1994) 

### (citation omitted). Here, 

### plaintiff alleges thatthe

### termination 

### ofher lease on September 30, 2006, her 

### eviction on February '7,2007 , and thetransfer 

### oftitle to her

### trailer on December 

### 17,2007, resulted in the uncompensated taking 

### ofher property. The last 

### ofthese events-the transfer 

### of 

### title terminated 

### plaintiff s

### properly interest in the

### trailer. Because possession 

### of aproperty interest is a necessary prerequisite 

### to establishing a 

### Fifth Amendment 

### taking, any action by defendant (through the concessionaire) after December 

### 17,2007, could not have constituted a 

### Fifth Amendment 

### taking. See

### Air Peeasus 

### of D.C.. Inc. v. 

### United 

### States,424F.3d1206,\2\2- 

### l3 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2005) 

### (noting that

### to establish the occunence 

### of a 

### Fifth Amendment 

### taking, a 

### plaintiff must show that he

### or she possesses a

### valid property interest andthatthe government's action 

### "'amounts to acompensable 

### taking ofthat property interest.

## "' (quoting 

### Am. Pelagic 

### Fishing Co.

### v. United Srates,379 

### F.3d 1363,1372 (Fed. 

### Cir. 

### 2004))). Accordingly, the latest date on

### which 

### plaintiff s 

### Fifth Amendment taking 

### claim could have accrued was December 17, 

### 2007. Because the 

### complaint was 

### filed on January 

### 27,2014, morethan 

### six years later, 

### it must be dismissed as 

### untimely.



## E. Plaintiff s

### Complaint Is Barred Under the 

### Doctrine of Res 

### Judicata
Even 

### if plaintiff timely 

### filed her 

### complaint, 

### itwould besubject

### to dismissal pursuantto the doctrine 

### of res

### judicata. Res

### judicata, as the term is 

### commonly used, encompasses the related concepts

### of claim preclusion and issue 

### preclusion. Nasalok Coating 

### Com. v. 

### Nylok Com., 522 

### F.3d 1320, I323 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2008); Sham 

### Kabushiki Kaisha v. 

### Thinksharp. Inc., 448 

### F.3d I368, 1370 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2006). "Claim preclusion refers to the effect 

### of a

### judgment 

### in foreclosing 

### litigation 

### ofa matter that never has been 

### litigated, because 

### of a determination that 

### it should have been advanced 

### in an earlier 

### suit. Claim preclusion therefore encompassesthe law 

### of merger and 

### bar." Misra v. Wanen 

### City Sch. 

### Dist. Bd. 

### of Educ., 465 U.S. 

### 75,77 

### n.\ (1984). In contrast, 

### "[i]ssue preclusion refers 

### tothe effect 

### ofajudgmenl in foreclosing 

### relitigation 

### ofa matter that has been 

### litigated and 

### decided. This effect also is referred 

### to as direct or 

### collateral estoppel." Id. 

### (citation 

### omitted). The latter concept is applicable 

### in this case.To establish issue preclusion, the

### following four elements must be satisfied:



## (l) the issue is 

### identical to one decided 

### in the

### first action; (2) the issue was actually 

### litigated in the

### first action; (3) 

### resolution

### ofthe issue was essential to a 

### finaljudgment in the

### first action; and 

### (4) 

### plaintiffhad a

### full and

### fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the 

### first action.


### In re Freeman, 30 

### F.3d 1459, 1465 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1994). Issue preclusion is 

### properly raised 

### in an 

### RCFC12(bX6)motion. CoparPumiceCo.v.UnitedStates, 

### 112Fed.Cl.515,527(2013)
In both this case and the case she 

### previously

### filed in the Court 

### of Federal Claims, 

### plaintiff alleged a 

### Fifth Amendment 

### taking bythe 

### United States arising 

### from the 

### termination of her lease, her 

### eviction, andthe

### disposition 

### ofher 

### trailer. Further, after 

### providing 

### plaintiff a

### full opportunity to be heard, the court in the earlier 

### lawsuit dismissed her 

### complaint, issuing a

### finaljudgment on 

### merits. The elements 

### ofissue preclusion have therefore been 

### satisfied. Thus, 

### if the court possessed 

### jurisdiction to entertain 

### plaintiffls claims, 

### itwould be required 

### to dismiss 

### plaintiff s 

### complaint for failure to state a

### claim upon

### which 

### reliefcould be granted.



## IV. APPLICATION TO PROCEED 

### IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Plaintiff filed, concurrent 

### with her 

### complaint, an 

### applicationto proceed 

### in forma pauperis. Pursuant 

### to 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1915, the Court 

### of Federal 

### Claims may

### waive

### filing fees and security under certain 

### circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 1915(aXl); see also Hayes v. 

### United States, 71 Fed. 

### Cl. 366, 366-67 (2006) (concluding that 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1915(a)(1) appliesto both prisoners and nonprisoners 

### alike). Plaintiffs wishing to proceed 

### in forma p4gpglig must submit an

### affidavit that 

### lists all 

### oftheir assets, declares that they are unableto pay the fees or give the security, and states the nature 

### of the action and

### their 

### beliefthat they are entitled 10

### redress. 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1915(a)(1). Here, 

### plaintiff has satisfied 

### all three 

### requirements. Accordingly, the court grants 

### plaintiffls application andwaives her

### filing fee. 

## V. CONCLUSION
Forthe reasons set

### forth above, the court 

### DENIES 

### plaintiffs motion 

### for appointment 

### of counsel and 

### GRANTS 

### plaintiffs application to proceed 

### in forma 

### pauperis. In addition, the 

### court 

### GRANTS defendant's 

### molion to dismiss and 

### DISMISSES 

### plaintiff s

### complaint for lack

### of jurisdiction. No costs. The 

### clerk shall 

### enterjudgment accordingly. 

### IT IS SO 

### ORDERED.

-6-